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 .
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding prior art, Guo et al. (US Publication 2022/0201516), the applicant essentially states the discloses does not qualify as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Title 35, USC 102 – conditions for patentability, the rule recites:
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
The effective filing date of the instant application, which is a continuation of PCT/CN21/072056, is 15 January 2021. The prior art, Guo et al. (US Publication 2022/0201516) has an effective filing date, which is a continuation of PCT/CN19/081003, of 2 April 2019, which was published by WIPO, in English, on 8 October 2020, which is before the effective filing date of the instant application. Therefore, Guo et al. (US Publication 2022/0201516) qualifies as prior art under 35 USC (a)(1).
Further, While 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides a grace period, the examiner notes that the publication (Inventors A, B, C) has a different inventive entity than the application (Inventors A, B, C, D, E, F), therefore, it is not "apparent" that the disclosure is entirely by the inventor or a joint inventor see MPEP 717.01. Therefore, in order to invoke35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) or B, a declaration to establish that the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from them is required, per 37 CFR 1.130(a) see MPEP 717.01(a)(1).
Secondly, regarding Lai et al. (US Publication 2023/0397224). The applicant essentially argues that the disclosure does not anticipate each and every element of the independent claims as required under 35 USC(a)(2). On page 10 of Applicants Arguments/Remarks, the applicant claims that the provisional application is entitled to be used as prior art as long as it offers support for the claimed subject matter.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. ”Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The claim language of the instant application recites:
A method comprising: receiving, by a wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a plurality of parameters; and performing, by the wireless communication device responsive to a trigger event, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring behavior comprising at least one of:
PDCCH monitoring according to a search space set (SSS) group from N SSS groups or skipping of PDCCH monitoring according to a skipping period, based on the plurality of parameters, wherein the skipping period is determined from one or more candidate skipping periods.
The related provisional application essentially mirrors the specification of prior art Lai et al. (US Publication 2023/0397224). Starting of page 8 of provisional 63/104,457, under section 3.1 Issue, is described a method of providing a UE with search space monitoring information in order to detect control information in an active DL BWP of a serving cell.
Starting on page 10 of the provisional, an embodiment is suggested to the prior issue, which includes: “when a UE receives/detects/decodes control information on a PDCCH in an active DL BWP the UE may switch PDCCH monitoring according to a specific value/setting/indication in the control information including search space set groups” see pages 10 and 11.
Finally, the provisional provides a specific example of the prior solution on pages 13 and 14. When a UE detects a DCI format 2_6 in an active DL BWP of Pcell (trigger), the UE may switch monitoring from a search space set group of ID1 to a search space set group of ID0, all according to the ‘0’ value of the indication field in DCI format 2_6. The prior maps to the independent claim language by receiving a trigger event, the indication field in DCI format received by the UE, which triggers/causes the change UE PDCCH monitoring according to a search space set (SSS) group from N SSS groups indicated by the trigger.
Therefore, each and every element as the claim language is anticipated as required under 35 USC 102(a)(2).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US Publication 2022/02021516).
Regarding claims Regarding claims 1 and 11, Guo teaches an apparatus and a method comprising: (i.e. fig. 14 shows a node for wireless communications comprising a processor, memory and transceiver for executing programmed instructions (method embodiments); see paragraphs 167)
receiving, by a wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a plurality of parameters; (i.e. fig. 2 shows a UE may receive configuration information indicating PDCCH monitoring parameters(202, 204); see paragraphs 48, 44) and
performing, by the wireless communication device responsive to a trigger event, a PDCCH monitoring behavior comprising at least one of: PDCCH monitoring according to a search space set (SSS) group from N SSS groups
or skipping of PDCCH monitoring according to a skipping period, based on the plurality of parameters, wherein the skipping period is determined from one or more candidate skipping periods. (i.e. fig.6 shows in response to receiving the configuration information, (602) the UE may determine when to skip PDCCH monitoring based upon information received by the UE from the GNb; “As further explained below in Methods 1 to 4 of Embodiment 1, the UE may skip PDCCH monitoring or switch PDCCH periodicity monitoring parameters or perform other operations based on the predefined information received by the UE from the gNB.” see paragraphs 48) (See Also; Guo discloses multiple instanced in which PDCCH monitoring may be skipped based upon selected configured intervals; see paragraphs 62, 69, 73; paragraphs 107, 109; paragraphs 131)
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, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lai et al. (US Publication 2023/0397224) disclosed prov. 63/104,457.
Regarding claims Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lai teaches an apparatus and a method comprising: (i.e. fig. 7 shows a node for wireless communications comprising a processor, memory and transceiver for executing programmed instructions (method embodiments); see paragraphs 449 - 456)
receiving, by a wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a plurality of parameters; (i.e. Lai discloses a UE may receive configuration information indicating a plurality of search space set groups (SSSG) along with SSSG identifiers; see paragraphs 89, 96 and claim 1) and
performing, by the wireless communication device responsive to a trigger event, a PDCCH monitoring behavior comprising at least one of: PDCCH monitoring according to a search space set (SSS) group from N SSS groups (i.e. fig.6 shows in response to receiving downlink control information (DCI), (602) the UE may begin PDCCH monitoring in the search space set group (SSSG) according to the DCI (604); see paragraphs 89, 96, 441 – 442 and claim 1)
or skipping of PDCCH monitoring according to a skipping period, based on the plurality of parameters, wherein the skipping period is determined from one or more candidate skipping periods.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger event comprises at least one of: the wireless communication device being provided a time occurring after a last slot or symbol or the end of the skipping period; receiving, by the wireless communication device from the wireless communication node, a signaling indicative of the change of PDCCH monitoring behavior; or occurrence of a predefined condition related to a timer at the wireless communication device. (i.e. fig. 2 shows the trigger event may comprise DCI signaling to indicate a switch to a different search space set group (602); see paragraphs 89, 441, 442)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Lai teaches the method of claim 4, comprising: determining, by the wireless communication device, that the signaling includes a downlink control information (DCI) indication. (i.e. the signalling may be received via DCI; see paragraphs 89, 441)
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) 2, 3, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US Publication 2023/0397224) disclosed prov. 63/104,457 in view of He et al. (US Publication 2023/0136739).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Lai discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 and 11 as described previously from which claim 2 and 12 depend. Lai does not teach wherein the plurality of parameters comprise at least one of: a search space switching configuration related to a first capability of the wireless communication device, or a PDCCH skipping configuration related to a second capability of the wireless communication device.
However, He teaches wherein the plurality of parameters comprise at least one of: a search space switching configuration related to a first capability of the wireless communication device, or a PDCCH skipping configuration related to a second capability of the wireless communication device. (i.e. He discloses a UE may change its PDCCH monitoring configuration to support search space set groups switching in response to a capability of the UE, redcap in this case; see paragraphs 34 - 37)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to configure the PDCCH monitoring to support search space set group switching based upon device capability of He into Lai. Both Lai and He teach PDCCH monitoring configurations.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lai to improve power saving capabilities.
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Lai discloses all the recited limitations of claim 2 and 12 as described previously from which claim 3 and 13 depend. Lai does not teach wherein the at least one of the first or second capability comprises an indication of whether the wireless communication device supports at least one of: switching among N groups of search space sets with a DCI format monitoring, where N is not less than 2; or skipping PDCCH monitoring during the skipping period with a DCI format monitoring.
However, He teaches wherein the at least one of the first or second capability comprises an indication of whether the wireless communication device supports at least one of: switching among N groups of search space sets with a DCI format monitoring, where N is not less than 2; or skipping PDCCH monitoring during the skipping period with a DCI format monitoring. (i.e. fig. 4 of He discloses a UE may first send its capability information (420) to indicate it may change its PDCCH monitoring configuration to support search space set groups switching in response to a capability of the UE, redcap in this case; see paragraphs 34 - 37)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to configure the PDCCH monitoring to support search space set group switching based upon device capability of He into Lai. Both Lai and He teach PDCCH monitoring configurations.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lai to improve power saving capabilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 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.
Claims 7 and 17 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.
Claims 8 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim that would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim that would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 20 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 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, Sujoy 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
May 11, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights