DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on December 30, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous rejection of claims 6-9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102, as being anticipated by Nakashima et al. (US 2021/0092772) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection based on Applicant’s amended claims.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al. (US 2021/0092772)(“Nakashima”), in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0124730)(“Li”).
As per claim 1, Nakashima teaches a method for monitoring a Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH), comprising:
determining, by a terminal, a target monitoring resource (i.e., CORESETs) for monitoring the PDCCH (see Fig. 15 and ¶0200-201) based on first information on a first time unit (i.e., according to a time domain, see for example ¶0095), wherein the first information comprises configuration information of a subband (see Fig. 15); and
monitoring the PDCCH based on the target monitoring resource (see for example, ¶0211, i.e., monitoring a plurality of PDCCH candidates in the control resource set (CORESET)).
As per claim 1, Nakashima however does not expressly teach the first information comprises configuration information of a guardband, wherein the target monitoring resource satisfies that the target monitoring resource is not overlapped with a guardband.
Nevertheless, in the same art of PDCCH/CORESET monitoring, Li teaches determining a target monitoring resource (i.e., CORESET) based on configuration information of a guardband (see Fig. 4, and ¶0102-0103), wherein the target monitoring resource satisfies that the target monitoring resource is not overlapped with a guardband (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure information of a guardband within the first information of Nakashima. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to ensure signal quality and prevent interference.
As per claim 2, Nakashima further teaches wherein the target monitoring resource comprises a resource corresponding to at least one of a COntrol REsource SET (CORESET), a Search Space (SS), or an SS set (see ¶0097, i.e., a CORESET or multiple search spaces).
As per claim 3, Nakashima does not expressly teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Li further teaches wherein the configuration information of the guardband comprises position information or size information of the guardband (see Fig. 4).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Nakashima and Li in claim 1 applies equally well to claim 3.
As per claim 10, Nakashima further teaches wherein before monitoring the PDCCH based on the target monitoring resource, the method further comprises:
determining, based on the first information, an available resource on the target monitoring resource (see for example, ¶0190, i.e., “the PDCCH including information for indicating available resources”), wherein monitoring the PDCCH based on the target monitoring resource comprises:
monitoring the PDCCH based on the available resource on the target monitoring resource (see for example, ¶0211, i.e., monitoring a plurality of PDCCH candidates in the control resource set (CORESET), which is impliedly based on the available resources).
As per claim 11, Nakashima further teaches wherein the available resource is determined in any one of the following … no unavailable resource is disclosed in the target monitoring resource (see for example, ¶0190, i.e., “the PDCCH including information for indicating available resources”, which implies “no unavailable resources”).
As per claim 12, Nakashima further teaches wherein monitoring the PDCCH based on the available resource on the target monitoring resource comprises:
determining a PDCCH candidate resource in the target monitoring resource based on a set of the available resources on the target monitoring resource (see for example, ¶0190, i.e., “the PDCCH including information for indicating available resources”); and
monitoring the PDCCH based on the PDCCH candidate resource (see ¶0211, i.e., monitoring a plurality of PDCCH candidates in the control resource set (CORESET)).
As per claim 14, Nakashima further teaches wherein when at least a portion of the target monitoring resources corresponds to monitoring timing or a frequency domain resource whose transmission direction is downlink (i.e., PDCCH, see ¶0201), at least a portion of the monitoring resources comprises at least one of the following: a COntrol REsource SET (CORESET) with an index #0 (i.e., “CORESET 0”, see Fig. 15 and ¶0201).
As per claim 15, Nakashima further teaches wherein the direction information of the subband (i.e., DL BWPs) is indicated by high-layer signaling (i.e., via RRC signaling, see ¶0196).
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-3 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claims 4, 5, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima and Li, in further in view of Abotabl et al. (US 2022/0086029)(“Abotabl”).
As per claims 4 and 19, Nakashima further teaches wherein the first information further comprises configuration information of a subband (see Fig. 15), the configuration information of the subband comprises direction information (i.e., in the downlink) or size information (i.e., 100MHz, etc.) of the subband (see Fig. 15, and ¶0200), and
a first subband comprises an uplink subband (i.e., one or multiple Uplink BWPs, see ¶0196). Nakashima, however, does not expressly teach wherein the target monitoring resource satisfies at least one of the following: the target monitoring resource is not overlapped with the first subband.
Nevertheless, in the same art of wireless resource allocating, Abotabl teaches an example of a downlink subband/BWP that is not overlapped with a first uplink subband/BWP (see Fig. 4C and ¶0084, also see similar Fig. 4C of provisional application 63/079856, filed on Sept. 17, 2020).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Abotabl, to allocate PDCCH monitoring resources in Nakashima that do not overlap with uplink bandwidth resources (i.e., first subband). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prevent self-interference at the UE when operating in a full duplex mode.
As per claim 5, Nakashima further teaches wherein the first subband (i.e., transmission bandwidth) is configured by a network side apparatus (i.e., adjusted by the base station apparatus 3, see ¶0194).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima, Li and Abotabl, in further in view of Islam et al. (US 2020/0229008)(“Islam”).
As per claim 6, the combination of Nakashima, Li and Abotabl does not expressly teach wherein monitoring the PDCCH based on the target monitoring resource when the target monitoring resource comprises the CORESET comprises: when the terminal supports to monitors the PDCCH on the N CORESETs, but the target monitoring resource comprises the M CORESETs, the N CORESETs are selected from the M CORESETs, wherein N<M; and the terminal monitors the PDCCH based on the N CORESETs.
Nevertheless, in the same art of wireless resource scheduling, Islam teaches an example where, because of beamforming capabilities at a UE, the UE is only able to select and monitor N CORESETS, which is less than a number of CORESETs (i.e., M CORESETs) occurring within a monitoring occasion (e.g., where N<M, see ¶0006, also see for example, ¶0146-157, where because of limitations on the number of simultaneous beams the UE is able to receive, the UE is only able to monitor CORESET 0, CORESET 1, and CORESET 2, but not CORESET 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Islam, to modify the teachings of Nakashima and Abotabl to monitor N CORESETs, which is less than a number of CORESETs set for a monitoring occasion/target monitoring resource (i.e., M CORESETs). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to allow for CORESETs monitoring up to a number of supported beams utilized by the UE.
As per claim 7, the combination of Nakashima, Li, and Abotabl does not expressly teach, however Islam further teaches wherein selecting the N CORESETs from the M CORESETs comprises at least one of the following:
based on an index value of each of the CORESETs, selecting the N CORESETs having a first index value from the M CORESETs (i.e., CORESET 0, read as CORESET with a first index value, see ¶0146-157).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Nakashima, Abotabl and Islam in claim 6 applies equally well to claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nakashima, Li, Abotabl, and Islam, in further in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0045569)(“Seo”).
As per claim 8, the combination of Nakashima, Li, Abotabl, and Islam does not expressly teach wherein selecting the N CORESETs from the M CORESETs based on the type of the SS of each of the CORESETs comprises: when the number of CORESETs selected from the M CORESETs based on the type of the SS of each of the CORESETs is X, and M>X>N, performing at least one of the following: based on the index value of each of the CORESETs, selecting the N CORESETs having the first index value from the X CORESETs; based on the number of resources comprised in each of the CORESETs, selecting the N CORESETs with the highest number of resources from the X CORESETs; or based on the index value of the SS associated with each of the CORESETs, selecting the N CORESETs associated with the SS having the second index value from the X CORESETs.
Nevertheless, in the same art of PDCCH monitoring, Seo teaches an example where a number of available CORESETs/search spaces, including searches spaces of a particular type (i.e., CSS), exceeds the capability of a user terminal (see ¶0008 “including multiple CORESETs that each include CSS”, also see ¶0037, i.e., “in a system where a number of allocated CORESETs is greater than the number of CORESETs that the terminal can monitor”, in other words, “M>X>N”), the terminal/UE thereafter prioritizes CORESETs that include the CSS with a smallest index (see ¶0008, in other words “based on the index value of each of the CORESETs, selecting the N CORESETs having the first index value from the X CORESETs”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, where in a situation such as in Seo where “M>X>N”, the terminal/UE thereafter prioritizes CORESETs that include the CSS with a smallest index. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to allow the terminal to operate without problems, even in a communication environment beyond the capability of the UE/terminal (see for example, Seo ¶0037).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nakashima and Li, in further view of Abotabl et al. (US 2021/0352667)(“Abotabl ‘677”)
As per claim 13, Nakashima does not expressly teach wherein monitoring the PDCCH based on the PDCCH candidate resource comprises: when no Resource Element (RE) as the unavailable resource is disclosed in the PDCCH candidate resource, monitoring the PDCCH based on the PDCCH candidate resource, wherein the PDCCH candidate resource is not monitored when there is an RE as the unavailable resource in the PDCCH candidate resource.
Nevertheless, in the same art of wireless communication, Abotabl ‘677 teaches a system for indicating a certain set of resources (i.e., REs) used for uplink transmission as being unavailable for downlink communication, including PDCCH (see for example, Fig. 12, and ¶0071, with anticipates the ignored downlink channel as including PDCCH, also see corresponding Fig. 12, and ¶0058, of provisional application 63/022408, filed on May. 08, 2020).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Nakashima with the teachings of Abotabl ‘677 for indicating unavailable resources/REs for downlink communication, and thus not monitoring PDCCH candidate resources that overlap with the unavailable resources/REs. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prevent self-interference at the UE when operating in a full duplex mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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
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 BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights