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 .
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHRIVASTAVA et al PG PUB 2024/0324068 in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2019/0394757.
Re Claims 1, 8 and 14, SHRIVASTAVA et al teaches a UE (a terminal comprising a process and a memory having a program) receiving a group common PDCCH on a MBS BWP/CRF [0103] from a network device (comprising a processor, memory having a program) wherein figure 3e teaches an active unicast BWP X, at least one MBS BWP Y1, Y2 being a CFF and each of the at least one MBS BWP Y1, Y2 having a frequency domain ranges Y1, Y2 within a frequency domain range of the active unicast BWP X [0061 0063]; the UE receiving a group common PDSCH on the MBS BWP/CFR [0103].
SHRIVASTAVA et al fails to explicitly teach “wherein a maximum of bits of common DCI in the common PDCCH is predefined; and a number of bits of the common DCI is configured via RRC layer signaling”.
However, ZHANG et al teaches a network configuring a control channel format [0154 0249] for a group common PDCCH/DCI wherein a maximum number of bits is configured [0291] to distinguish different control channel formats from teach other. By combining the teachings, the configured maximum number of bits in the common DCI can be used to differentiate a configured number of bits of other DCI formats to ensure the control channel format (the common DCI) can be decoded correctly for reliability. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have configured the common DCI with a maximum number of bits to distinguish the number of bits configured for the other DCI format to ensure the common DCI can be successfully decoded. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 5-7, 12-13, 18-20, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHRIVASTAVA et al PG PUB 2024/0324068 in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2019/0394757 as applied to Claims 1, 8 and 14 above and further in view of CHEN et al PG PUB 2022/0053470.
Re Claims 5-6, 12-13, 18-19, SHRIVASTAVA et al PG PUB 2024/0324068 in view of ZHANG et al fails to teach the “…CSS index” configured in “PDCCH configuration”. However, CHEN et al teaches the PDCCH configuration indicating a CSS index for performing blind detection [0066 0115]. By combining the teachings, the terminal would have been configured to differentiate between CSSs by its index so that the common DCI can be correctly detected. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have configured the terminal with the CSS index so that the group DCi can be detected in the particular CSS index. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 7, 20, 23 and 26, SHRIVASTAVA et al PG PUB 2024/0324068 in view of ZHANG et al fails to teach the “when a number of times that [[the]] a terminal device performs blind detection on the PDCCH in a certain time slot exceeds capability of the terminal device, determining a priority of the CSS according to the index of the CSS.”.
However, CHEN et al teaches after the priority of the first CSS set is set to be higher than the priority of the second CSS set, if complexity of blind detection corresponding to the first CSS set and the second CSS set exceeds a maximum blind detection capability of a terminal device, the terminal device may abandon monitoring the downlink control channel candidate resource of the second CSS set or lesser priority USS, thereby reducing impact of a CSS set or lesser priority USS corresponding to the power saving signal on another CSS set [0022 0059 0060]. By combining the teachings, based on the priority of the CSS index, the terminal can abandon the monitoring of the second CSS set thereby reducing power. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to conserve power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, 17, 21, 22 and 24-25 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claims 4, 11 and 17, prior art fails to teach CRC Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) of the common PDCCH is scrambled by a Groupcast Radio Network Temporary Identifier 'G-RNTI' (G-RNTI), and when a number of bits of different DCI that need to be detected by a terminal in a cell is calculated, the common DCI is not counted in a number of bits of DCI scrambled by a C-RNTI Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12-14, 18-20, 23 and 26have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Re Claims 1, 8 and 14, Applicant argues that “Zhang is silent about how or when to set the maximum number of bits that can be transmitted”.
Examiner disagrees.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 does not require “how or when to set the maximum number of bits”. The claims requires that the “a maximum number or bits…is predefined;”. Zhang et al teaches the control channel format or the group common PDCCH/DCI can be distinguished by the maximum number of bits that can be transmitted. In order to distinguish the group common PDCCH/DCI, the maximum number of bits are predefined and configured prior to the transmission.
Re Claims 1, 8 and 14, Applicant further argues “the maximum number of bits…predefined to guarantee that the maximum number of bits of the common DCI is aligned with that of other DCI”. However, such limitation(s) is not claimed.
Zhang et al teaches the BS notifies the terminal regarding the maximum number of bits for the control channel format [0248]. Zhang et al teaches the RRC signaling is used to configure the common DCI with transmission parameters [0249]. It is examiner’s position that the terminal is configured/RRCed with the maximum number of bits so that the control channel format for the common DCI can be distinguished by the terminal. In so doing, the terminal can ascertain the correct common DCI format when blind detection is performed in the common DCI search space.
Applicant is requested to argue this point in the next response.
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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703370. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475