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 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of Applicant’s Arguments, Applicant argues that the claims overcome the art of record based on the interview on 11/3/2025. In the interview (see attached) applicant argued that the system of Lai did not disclose that the DCI was monitored for a retransmission during the PDCCH skipping procedure. At the time the examiner agreed, but further analysis has regrettably found this argument unpersuasive.
That is, looking to 0210-0217 of Lai, it can be seen that, in at least some embodiments, it is contemplated that at least in some embodiments, a DCI indication may be to terminate the PDCCH skipping procedure via switching from a default/empty SSSG (see paragraph 0057, 0210-0217, 0167). However, embodiments are contemplated where actual PDCCH monitoring still occurs. For example, paragraph 0169 makes it clear that at least for the serving cell, the UE may continue to monitor the DCI during the monitoring period while skipping the other configured cells and may receive, via the monitored DCI, a HARQ retransmission/DL assignment (paragraph 0169 –“In a case that the UE receives DCI indicating the PDCCH monitoring adaptation (e.g., PDCCH skipping and/or SSSG switching) for multiple serving cells (e.g., for a group of cells), and there is a retransmission period within the PDCCH monitoring adaptation duration/period, the UE may determine whether to perform the PDCCH monitoring adaptation (e.g., skipping the PDCCH monitoring for a duration and/or switching to dormant/empty SSSG) or perform the PDCCH monitoring for HARQ retransmission (e.g., DL assignment for PDSCH retransmission and/or UL grant for PUSCH retransmission) at least during a retransmission period for each serving cell indicated by the DCI for the PDCCH monitoring adaption in the multiple serving cells (e.g., in the group of cells).” ; note also 63251501, pages 10-11, section 3.1).
Therefore, Applicant’s Arguments have been considered and are not persuasive.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 14-18, 25, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-2205278 (“278”) (Author Unknown, FL summary#2 of DCI-based power saving adaptation, Doc. No. R1-2205278, pages 1-87, 20 May 2022) in view of Lai¸ et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2025/0008431 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, 278 discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) to and a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising
a. receive/receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) skipping configuration; (278 discloses that a UE receives an RRC configuration of the PDCCH skipping parameters including the skipping duration [page 78, under dot “if alt 1 is supported” – “…Multiple candidate values of skipping duration configured by RRC….signaling and use DCI to dynamically indicate one of the configured skipping duration by specification”...page 79 – top - For Beh 1A, The UE can be configured to be indicated by DCI a value of X (i.e., skipping duration) among up to M multiple RRC configured values by scheduling DCIs indicating PDCCH schedules data).
b. receive/receiving an indication to perform a PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration; (278 discloses the UE determines which skipping duration to apply from the skipping configuration based on a signled DCI from the gNB/base station [page 78, under dot “if alt 1 is supported” – “…Multiple candidate values of skipping duration configured by RRC….signaling and use DCI to dynamically indicate one of the configured skipping duration by specification”...page 79 – top - For Beh 1A, The UE can be configured to be indicated by DCI a value of X (i.e., skipping duration) among up to M multiple RRC configured values by scheduling DCIs indicating PDCCH schedules data].)
278 fails to disclose monitoring/monitor a downlink control information (DCI) during the PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration, wherein the DCI schedules the retransmission. In the same field of endeavor, Lai discloses a downlink control information (DCI) during the PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration, wherein the DCI schedules the retransmission. (The system of Lai discloses that when a UE receives a PDCCH skipping indication from a specific cell/PCell/PSCell, the UE may only partly perform PDCCH skipping when the retransmission timer is active by monitoring PDCCH/DCI in the specific cell/PCell/PSCell and performing skipping of the PDCCH/DCI in the other cells [paragraph 0187; not also 63251501, page 13, first and second full paragraphs]. The DCI on PDCCH is monitored to receive/schedule retransmissions and to determine when the retransmission timer is halted [paragraphs 0210-217; note also 63251501, page 14, section “The Retransmission Period may end”…subsection 1; note also paragraph 0169/63251501, pages 10-11, section 3.1 – the monitoring is of the DCI for a retransmission indication via a downlink allocation.])
Therefore, since Lai discloses monitoring the DCI during a PDCCH skipping procedure to check the DCI for retransmission related information on the specific cell/PCell/PSCell while performing PDCCH skipping of other cells in the PDCCH group, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the DCI during skipping of Lai with the system of 278 by determining the length of the PDCCH skipping in accordance with the DCI indication of 278, while further allowing cell group based PDCCH skipping in which the UE continues to monitor PDCCH/DCI on the specific cell/PCell/PSCell while performing DCI skipping for all other cells. The motive to combine is to allow the UE to check for scheduled retransmissions on the specific cell/PCell/PSCell while still performing power savings for the other cells in the group by performing PDCCH skipping.
With respect to claim 1, 278 as modified by Lar fails to disclose at least one memory and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, is configured to carry out its respective functions. However, it is officially noted that the use of a processor and memory was well known in the art at the time of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the functions of the UE of 278 as modified by Lar using a processor and memory.
Regarding claim 2, 278 as modified by Lar in the independent claim discloses receive the PDCCH skipping configuration receive the indication to perform the PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration and monitor the DCI during the PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration. (As discussed in the independent claim, supra, the PDCCH configuration is received by RRC and configures the skipping length used to configure the PDCCH procedure and the DCI/PDCCH is monitored for further retransmissions during the skipping procedure)
Regarding claim 3, 278 as modified by Lar in the independent claim discloses the DCI schedules the retransmission of data during the PDCCH skipping procedure (as discussed in the independent claim, supra, the DCI/PDCCH is monitored for further retransmissions during the skipping procedure)
Regarding claim 10, 278 discloses the PDCCH skipping configuration is based on a delay deadline, wherein a start of the delay deadline is based at least on one of a start of a discontinuous reception (DRX) on duration (The PDCCH skipping is performed during UE DRX duration and runs during a DRX interval with the configuration indicating the number of skipped PDCCHs during DRX [page 70, element 16 – DRX cycle start coincides with PDCCH skipping time; pages 78-79 – PDCCH skipping length configured].)
Regarding claim 14, 278 fails to disclose transmitting a non-acknowledgement (NACK) indicating a non-successful data reception, wherein the NACK initiates the retransmission of the non-successful data reception. In the same field of endeavor, Lai discloses transmitting a non-acknowledgement (NACK) indicating a non-successful data reception, wherein the NACK initiates the retransmission of the non-successful data reception (Lai dislcoses that a NACK triggers a retransmission [paragraphs 0210-217; note also 63251501, page 14, section “The Retransmission Period may end”].)
Therefore, since Lai discloses retransmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the retransmissions of Lai with the system of 278 by having the UE request a retransmission of unsuccessfully received data and receiving a retransmission in response. The motive to combine is to improve reliability through retransmission.
Regarding claims 16 and 30 , 278 discloses An apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity comprising
a. Output a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) skipping configuration; (278 discloses that a UE receives and the base station/gNB/network entity transmits/outputs an RRC configuration of the PDCCH skipping parameters including the skipping duration [page 78, under dot “if alt 1 is supported” – “…Multiple candidate values of skipping duration configured by RRC….signaling and use DCI to dynamically indicate one of the configured skipping duration by specification”...page 79 – top - For Beh 1A, The UE can be configured to be indicated by DCI a value of X (i.e., skipping duration) among up to M multiple RRC configured values by scheduling DCIs indicating PDCCH schedules data).
b. output/outputting an indication to perform a PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration; (278 discloses the UE determines which skipping duration to apply from the skipping configuration based on a singled/transmitted/outputted DCI from the gNB/base station/network entity [page 78, under dot “if alt 1 is supported” – “…Multiple candidate values of skipping duration configured by RRC….signaling and use DCI to dynamically indicate one of the configured skipping duration by specification”...page 79 – top - For Beh 1A, The UE can be configured to be indicated by DCI a value of X (i.e., skipping duration) among up to M multiple RRC configured values by scheduling DCIs indicating PDCCH schedules data].)
278 fails to disclose output/outputting a downlink control information (DCI) during the PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration, wherein the DCI schedules a retransmission. In the same field of endeavor, Lai discloses output/outputting a downlink control information (DCI) during the PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration, wherein the DCI schedules a retransmission. (The system of Lai discloses that when a UE receives a PDCCH skipping indication output from a specific cell/PCell/PSCell/network entity/gNB, the UE may only partly perform PDCCH skipping when the retransmission timer is active by monitoring PDCCH/DCI in the specific cell/PCell/PSCell and performing skipping of the PDCCH/DCI in the other cells [paragraph 0187; not also 63251501, page 13, first and second full paragraphs]. The DCI on PDCCH is monitored to receive/schedulean output/outputted DCI from the network retransmissions and to determine when the retransmission timer is halted [paragraphs 0210-217; note also 63251501, page 14, section “The Retransmission Period may end”…subsection 1; note also paragraph 0169/63251501, pages 10-11, section 3.1 – the monitoring is of the DCI for a retransmission indication via a downlink allocation].)
Therefore, since Lai discloses outputting a DCI from the specific cell/PCell/PSCell/network entity/gNB during a PDCCH skipping procedure, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the DCI during skipping of Lai with the system of 278 by determining the length of the PDCCH skipping in accordance with the DCI indication of 278, and determining to output the DCI of the specific cell/PCell/PSCell/network entity/gNB during the skipping period when the UE has not acknowledged an outstanding transmission/retransmission to allow scheduling of a UE retrasmission. The motive to combine is to allow the UE to still received retransmissions during the skipping period while allowing for power savings at other base stations and after successful acknowledgement.
With respect to claim 17, 278 as modified by Lar fails to disclose at least one memory and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the apparatus t carry out its respective functions. However, it is officially noted that the use of a processor and memory was well known in the art at the time of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the functions of the UE of 278 as modified by Lar using a processor and memory.
Regarding claim 17, 278 as modified by Lar in the independent claim discloses r output the PDCCH skipping configuration; output the indication to perform the PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration; and output the DCI during the PDCCH skipping procedure based on the PDCCH skipping configuration. (As discussed in the independent claim, supra, the specific cell/PCell/PSCell/network entity/gNB outputs the DCI/PDCCH during the skipping procedure based on the configuration, as it does not output the DCI/PDCCH as long as there are outstanding HARQ transmissions.)
Regarding claim 18, 278 as modified by Lar in the independent claim discloses the DCI schedules the retransmission of data during the PDCCH skipping procedure (as discussed in the independent claim, supra, the DCI/PDCCH is may schedule a retransmission during the skipping procedure)
Regarding claim 25, 278 discloses the PDCCH skipping configuration is based on a delay deadline, wherein a start of the delay deadline is based at least on one of a start of a discontinuous reception (DRX) on duration (The PDCCH skipping is performed during UE DRX duration and runs during a DRX interval with the configuration indicating the number of skipped PDCCHs during DRX [page 70, element 16 – DRX cycle start coincides with PDCCH skipping time; pages 78-79 – PDCCH skipping length configured].)
Regarding claim 29, 278 fails to disclose obtain a non-acknowledgement (NACK) indicating a non-successful data reception, wherein the NACK initiates the retransmission of the non-successful data reception. In the same field of endeavor, Lai discloses obtain a non-acknowledgement (NACK) indicating a non-successful data reception, wherein the NACK initiates the retransmission of the non-successful data reception (Lai discloses that a NACK received/obtained at a base station triggers a retransmission [paragraphs 0210-217; note also 63251501, page 14, section “The Retransmission Period may end”].)
Therefore, since Lai discloses retransmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the retransmissions of Lai with the system of 278 by having the base station receive/obtain a NACK for unsuccessfully received data and transmit a retransmission in response. The motive to combine is to improve reliability through retransmission.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-2205278 (“278”) (Author Unknown, FL summary#2 of DCI-based power saving adaptation, Doc. No. R1-2205278, pages 1-87, 20 May 2022) in view of Lai¸ et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2025/0008431 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 and further in view of Tseng, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0199643)
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit a UE capability report indicating that the UE supports a dynamic behavior of monitoring for the DCI that schedules the retransmission during a PDCCH skipping period. In the same field of endeavor, Tseng discloses transmitting a UE capability report indicating that the UE supports a dynamic behavior of monitoring for the DCI that schedules the retransmission during a PDCCH skipping period.
That is, the system of Lai discloses it is known to use DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping, but is silent as to how the base station knows the UE supports this mechanism.
The system of Tseng discloses the UE may report detailed information regarding the types and modes of PDCCH skipping it supports (paragraph 0171; see also 63263226, pages 4-5, elements 4-6).
Therefore, since Tseng discloses the UE transmits to the base station detailed capabilities regarding PDCCH skipping, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the capabilities of Tseng with the DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping of 278 as modified by Lai by further having the UE report the capability to support DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping. The motive to combine is to allow the base station to know if the UE will operate in accordance with DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping so that it may also utilize DCI transmission/output during PDCCH skipping when the UE supports it.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the at least one processor is configured to obtain a user equipment (UE) capability report indicating that a UE supports a dynamic behavior of monitoring for the DCI that schedules the retransmission during a PDCCH skipping period. In the same field of endeavor, Tseng discloses obtaining a user equipment (UE) capability report indicating that a UE supports a dynamic behavior of monitoring for the DCI that schedules the retransmission during a PDCCH skipping period.
That is, the system of Lai discloses it is known to use DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping, but is silent as to how the base station knows the UE supports this mechanism.
The system of Tseng discloses the UE may report and the base station/network entity may receive/obtain detailed information regarding the types and modes of PDCCH skipping it supports (paragraph 0171; see also 63263226, pages 4-5, elements 4-6).
Therefore, since Tseng discloses the UE transmits to the base station detailed capabilities regarding PDCCH skipping, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the capabilities of Tseng with the DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping of 278 as modified by Lai by further having the UE report the capability to support DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping and haging the base station/network entity receive it and only use DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping when the UE supports it. The motive to combine is to allow the base station to know if the UE will operate in accordance with DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping so that it may also utilize DCI transmission/output during PDCCH skipping when the UE supports it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 11-13 and 20-24 are 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.
Claim 26-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following are a reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 20, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the PDCCH skipping configuration indicates whether a DCI scheduling retransmission during a PDCCH skipping period of the PDCCH skipping procedure is monitored. That is, no art in which an indication is provided for monitored PDCCH skipping could be located.
Regarding claims 6-9 and 21-24, the claims depend from claims 5 and 20 and are allowable for at least the reasons stated with respect to those claims, supral.
Regarding claims 11 and 26, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose monitor/output a non-scheduling DCI based PDCCH monitoring adaptation indication. That is, as discussed, supra, the prior art fails to disclose a monitoring adaptation indication used to indicate the DCI monitoring during PDCCH skipping.
Regarding claims 12-13 and 27-28, the claims depend form claims 11 and 26 and are allowable for at least the reasons stated with respect to those claims, supra.
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 CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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 on (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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466