DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 6 February 2024.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hosseini et al. (US 2020/0329389).
Regarding claim 13, Hosseini discloses “A PDCCH monitoring method, comprising: sending, by a network-side device, first information, wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: a search space configuration or a PDCCH monitoring capability configuration.” Hosseini teaches that “a base station may receive the indication of UE PDCCH monitoring capability information, and may configure the UE with one or more monitoring occasions accordingly” (¶[0049], and Figure 15 shows the network side to “Receive an indication of PDCCH monitoring capabilities from a UE,” “Determine a configuration for one or more PDCCH monitoring occasions,” and “Transmit the configuration to the UE” . (¶[0096, 0201-0203])
Regarding claim 14, Hosseini discloses “The method according to claim 13, wherein before the sending, by a network-side device, first information, the method further comprises: receiving, by the network-side device, second information, wherein the second information is used to indicate PDCCH monitoring capability information of a terminal.” Figure 15 expressly shows “Receive an indication of PDCCH monitoring capabilities from a UE” before transmitting the configuration to the UE. (¶[0096, 0201-0203])
Regarding claim 15, Hosseini discloses “The method according to claim 13, wherein the PDCCH monitoring capability information comprises at least one of the following: first sub-information for indicating whether a terminal supports a multislot-based PDCCH monitoring capability; second sub-information for indicating whether the terminal supports different PDCCH monitoring capabilities for different bandwidth parts of a same cell; third sub-information for indicating whether the terminal supports different PDCCH monitoring capabilities corresponding to different cells; or a maximum value of G cell capacity parameters, G being a positive integer.” Hosseini teaches that “a UE may indicate different physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring capabilities … per monitoring span or slot,” that “a UE may indicate different sets of PDCCH monitoring capabilities,” and that “a base station may receive the indication of UE PDCCH monitoring capability information” . Hosseini further teaches identifying “PDCCH monitoring capability information, which may be associated with the service type” in Figure 13. (¶[0088])
Regarding claim 16, Hosseini discloses “The method according to claim 15, wherein the first sub-information is used for indicating at least one of the following: whether the terminal supports a slot-group-based PDCCH monitoring capability; or whether the terminal supports a slot-level-span-based PDCCH monitoring capability.” Hosseini teaches different PDCCH monitoring capabilities “per monitoring span or slot” and different sets of PDCCH monitoring capabilities for different contexts . Figure 14 further shows identifying “a first set of PDCCH monitoring capabilities and a second set of physical downlink control channel monitoring capabilities” (¶[0088])
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini et al. (US 2020/0329389 A1) in view of Salah et al. (US 2021/0160002 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hosseini discloses:
“A physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring method, comprising:”(¶[0051]–[0053]: “Techniques are described for monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)… a UE may monitor PDCCH candidates…”)
“receiving, by a terminal, first information, wherein the terminal supports at least a multislot-based PDCCH monitoring capability, and the first information comprises at least one of the following: a search space configuration or a PDCCH monitoring capability configuration;”(¶[0051]–[0053]: “a UE may receive signaling indicating PDCCH monitoring capability…”)(¶[0130]–[0135]: “the UE may be configured with one or more search space sets… monitoring occasions… parameters associated with PDCCH monitoring capability…”)
“determining, by the terminal based on the first information, a PDCCH monitoring capability”(¶[0051]–[0053]: “the configuration… may be based at least in part on the received indication of UE PDCCH monitoring capabilities…”)
“monitoring, by the terminal, PDCCHs based on the PDCCH monitoring capability”(¶[0051]–[0053]: “monitor PDCCH candidates during the configured monitoring occasions…”)
Hosseini does not disclose:
“determining, by the terminal based on the first information, a PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to each of N cells of the terminal, N being an integer greater than 1; and monitoring, by the terminal, PDCCHs of the N cells based on the PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to each of the N cells.”
However, Salah discloses:
“determining… a PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to each of N cells of the terminal”(¶[0034]–[0035]: “the UE may determine a monitoring capability corresponding to a number of cells… per slot or span corresponding to N cells…”)
“configuring a first set of cells using a first PDCCH monitoring capability and a second set of cells using a second PDCCH monitoring capability”(¶[0051]–[0053]: “a configuration may configure a first set of cells using a first monitoring capability and a second set of cells using a second monitoring capability…”)
Thus, Salah discloses:
“determining… a PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to each of N cells… and monitoring… PDCCHs of the N cells based on the corresponding capability.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Hosseini to determine and apply PDCCH monitoring capability on a per-cell basis as taught by Salah, because both references relate to PDCCH monitoring capability determination, and applying capability across multiple cells (e.g., carrier aggregation) is a predictable use of known techniques to manage monitoring resources across cells.
Regarding claim 2, Hosseini discloses:
“The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the terminal based on the PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to each of the N cells, a target limitation corresponding to the N cells, wherein the target limitation comprises at least one of the following: a time domain position limitation for a PDCCH monitoring occasion and a PDCCH processing parameter limitation; and monitoring, by the terminal, the PDCCHs of the N cells based on the target limitation corresponding to the N cells.”
Hosseini teaches that:
“PDCCH monitoring capability information includes… a number of control channel elements per slot, a number of control channel elements per PDCCH monitoring span, a span pattern, a number of blind decodes, a number of PDCCH monitoring occasions…” (¶[0051-53])
and further teaches:
“monitor one or more search space sets… during the one or more PDCCH monitoring occasions” (¶[0130-135])
Thus, Hosseini teaches determining limitations corresponding to monitoring occasions (time-domain position limitation) and processing parameters (e.g., control channel elements, blind decodes), and monitoring based on such limitations.
Hosseini does not disclose applying such target limitations corresponding to each of N cells.
However, Salah discloses:
“receive a configuration configuring a first set of cells using a first PDCCH monitoring capability and a second set of cells using a second PDCCH monitoring capability” (¶[0030])
and:
“determine a first monitoring budget corresponding to the first set of cells… and a second monitoring budget corresponding to the second set of cells…” (¶[0031])
Thus, Salah teaches applying monitoring limitations (budgets) corresponding to multiple cells or sets of cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the monitoring limitations taught by Hosseini on a per-cell basis as taught by Salah, because distributing monitoring constraints across multiple cells is a predictable implementation of PDCCH monitoring in carrier aggregation scenarios.
Regarding claim 3, Hosseini discloses:
“The method according to claim 2, wherein the target limitation comprises a time domain position limitation for the PDCCH monitoring occasion.”
Hosseini teaches:
“monitor one or more search space sets… during the one or more PDCCH monitoring occasions” (¶[0130-135])
and:
“PDCCH monitoring capability information includes… PDCCH monitoring occasions… span patterns…” (¶[0088])
Thus, Hosseini teaches that PDCCH monitoring is constrained by monitoring occasions, which define time-domain positions for monitoring, thereby teaching the claimed time domain position limitation.
It would have been obvious to utilize such time-domain monitoring occasion limitations in the method of claim 2 because monitoring occasions inherently define when PDCCH monitoring occurs in time and are fundamental to NR PDCCH monitoring procedures.
Regarding claim 5, Hosseini further discloses:
“The method according to claim 1, wherein a PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to a cell is any one of the following:”
“a PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to an active bandwidth part (BWP) of the cell;”
“and a PDCCH monitoring capability of a virtual cell corresponding to the cell.”
Hosseini teaches:
“the UE may be configured with one or more search space sets… and may monitor one or more search space sets… in accordance with the received configuration” (¶[0021])
and:
“the UE may indicate different sets of PDCCH monitoring capabilities… for different configurations” (¶[0049-50])
Thus, Hosseini teaches that PDCCH monitoring capability is associated with configured resources of a cell, such as bandwidth-specific configurations (e.g., search space sets corresponding to active portions of spectrum).
Hosseini does not explicitly disclose defining such capability corresponding to a cell in a multi-cell context.
However, Salah further discloses:
“receive a configuration configuring a first set of cells using a first PDCCH monitoring capability and a second set of cells using a second PDCCH monitoring capability” (¶[0030])
Thus, Salah teaches associating PDCCH monitoring capability with respective cells.
It would have been obvious to define the PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to a cell in terms of configured bandwidth resources (e.g., BWP) as taught by Hosseini and apply such per-cell capability as taught by Salah, because associating monitoring capability with configured cell resources and applying such capability per cell is a predictable implementation in multi-cell wireless systems.
Regarding claim 6, Hosseini further discloses:
“The method according to claim 1, wherein a PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to a cell is determined based on an SCS.”
Hosseini teaches:
“PDCCH monitoring capability information includes… a number of control channel elements per slot… per monitoring span… monitoring occasions…” (¶[0048])
Thus, Hosseini teaches monitoring capability defined in terms of slot- and span-based parameters.
Salah further discloses:
“monitor a maximum number of PDCCH candidates… per slot or per span…” (¶[0034])
Thus, both references teach monitoring capability tied to slot/span structures, which are determined by subcarrier spacing (SCS).
It would have been obvious to determine PDCCH monitoring capability based on SCS because SCS defines slot duration and span structure, which directly determine monitoring capability constraints.
Regarding claim 7, Hosseini further discloses:
“The method according to claim 1, wherein before the receiving, by a terminal, first information, the method further comprises:”
“sending, by the terminal, second information,”
“wherein the second information is used to indicate PDCCH monitoring capability information of the terminal.”
Hosseini teaches:
“transmit an indication of UE PDCCH monitoring capabilities to the base station” (¶[0051-53])
and:
“receive a configuration… based on the transmitted indication” (¶[0051-53])
Thus, Hosseini teaches that the terminal sends capability information prior to receiving configuration information.
It would have been obvious to perform such capability reporting before receiving configuration because capability signaling from the terminal is required for the network to determine appropriate PDCCH monitoring configuration.
Regarding claim 10, Hosseini further discloses wherein in a case that the cell corresponds to the multislot-based PDCCH monitoring capability, a PDCCH processing parameter limitation for a cell satisfies at least one of the following:
in a case that the cell corresponds to a slot-group-based PDCCH monitoring capability, a PDCCH processing parameter sum for each slot group of the cell satisfies a PDCCH processing parameter first-limitation; or
in a case that the cell corresponds to a slot-level-span-based PDCCH monitoring capability and a slot level span pattern is determined based on a fifth rule, a PDCCH processing parameter limitation sum for each slot level span of the cell satisfies the PDCCH processing parameter first-limitation. (¶[0023])
Regarding claim 12, Hosseini further discloses wherein in a case that U cells in the N cells correspond to the multislot-based PDCCH monitoring capability and U is an integer greater than 1, the U cells satisfy a third condition. (¶[0049, 0088])
Regarding claim 17, Hosseini discloses “A terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the terminal to perform: receiving first information, wherein the terminal supports at least a multislot-based PDCCH monitoring capability, and the first information comprises at least one of the following: a search space configuration or a PDCCH monitoring capability configuration; … and monitoring PDCCHs …” through the UE-side functionality shown in Figures 12–14 and the accompanying disclosure that the UE transmits an indication of PDCCH monitoring capabilities, receives a configuration for one or more PDCCH monitoring occasions, and monitors one or more search space sets in accordance with the received configuration . ¶[0051–0053, 0130–0135]
Hosseini does not specifically disclose “determining … a PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to each of N cells of the terminal, N being an integer greater than 1; and monitoring PDCCHs of the N cells based on the PDCCH monitoring capability corresponding to each of the N cells.”
However, Salah discloses configuring a first set of cells using a first PDCCH monitoring capability and a second set of cells using a second PDCCH monitoring capability, determining respective monitoring budgets for those sets of cells, and performing PDCCH monitoring according to those monitoring budgets ¶[0051]–[0053]. For the same reason discussed with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to incorporate Salah’s multi-cell capability assignment into the terminal implementation of Hosseini.
Regarding claim 20, Hosseini in view of Salah further discloses “A network-side device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor, the steps of the PDCCH monitoring method according to claim 13 are implemented.” Figure 15 and the associated disclosure describe the network-side/base-station operations of receiving UE capability information, determining configuration for monitoring occasions, transmitting the configuration to the UE, and transmitting control information during those occasions. (¶[0096, 0201-0203])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 9, and 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights