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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/24/25 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 9/16/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, on line 5, it appears that the word “to” is missing before the word “each”. Also, on line 15, it appears that the word “a” is missing before the word “same”.
Claims 2-4 are also objected to as being dependent on claim 1 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 5, on line 12, it appears that the word “to” is missing before the word “each”. Also, on line 21, it appears that the word “a” is missing before the word “same”.
Claims 6-8 are also objected to as being dependent on claim 5 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 9, on line 5, it appears that the word “to” is missing before the word “each”. Also, on line 7, it appears that a “comma” is missing after the term “UE”. Also, on line 13, it appears that the word “a” is missing before the word “same”.
Claims 10-12 are also objected to as being dependent on claim 9 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 13, on line 11, it appears that the word “to” is missing before the word “each”. Also, on line 19, it appears that the word “a” is missing before the word “same”.
Claims 14-16 are also objected to as being dependent on claim 13 and containing the same deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, there is some confusion regarding the newly added claim language “identifying downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling on the second serving cell included in at least one cell based on the configuration information”. It is unclear what is meant by the second serving cell being included in at least one cell. It is also unclear as to what the DCI is scheduling on the second serving cell. As a result, this claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected as being dependent on claim 1 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 5, there is some confusion regarding the newly added claim language “identify downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling on the second serving cell included in at least one cell based on the configuration information”. It is unclear what is meant by the second serving cell being included in at least one cell. It is also unclear as to what the DCI is scheduling on the second serving cell. As a result, this claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 6-8 are also rejected as being dependent on claim 5 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 9, there is some confusion regarding the newly added claim language “transmitting, to the UE downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling on the second serving cell included in at least one cell based on the configuration information”. It is unclear what is meant by the second serving cell being included in at least one cell. It is also unclear as to what the DCI is scheduling on the second serving cell. As a result, this claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 10-12 are also rejected as being dependent on claim 9 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 13, there is some confusion regarding the newly added claim language “transmit, to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling on the second serving cell included in at least one cell based on the configuration information”. It is unclear what is meant by the second serving cell being included in at least one cell. It is also unclear as to what the DCI is scheduling on the second serving cell. As a result, this claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 14-16 are also rejected as being dependent on claim 13 and containing the same deficiency.
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.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2021/0377996) cited in Applicant’s submitted IDS in view of Babaei (U.S. 2022/0039072).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches where a UE 100 (user equipment) may perform blind detection of a PDCCH according to a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (first search space) associated with the scheduling cell (first serving cell) and a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (second search space) associated with the scheduled cell (second serving cell), so as to receive DCI for scheduling multiple cells and/or DCI for scheduling one of the multiple cells (e.g. on second serving cell), where there is a linkage between the search space of the scheduled cell and the search space of the scheduling cell (linked to each other) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0044]; where search space configurations 301 and 303 of Figure 3 may have the same search space ID (identifier) as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0045].
Lee also teaches where a UE 100 determines (identifies) a first set of candidate number(s) of a first set of aggregation level(s) for receiving a first DCI, where the first DCI is a multiple-cell scheduling DCI and includes control information for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells; where the UE 100 determines the first set of candidate number(s) of the first set of aggregation level(s) according to (associated with) at least one of the search space configurations respectively assigned to the multiple cells (e.g. the second serving cell); and where an aggregation level indicates how many CCEs are allocated for a PDCCH (counting of PDCCH and control channel elements (CCEs)) as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052].
Lee does not explicitly teach “receiving, from a base station on a first serving cell, configuration information on a search space”.
However, Babaei teaches a method a system for wireless control channel transmission where a wireless device 112, in communication with a gNB 122 (base station), may receive configuration parameters of a plurality of bandwidth parts (BWPs) of a first BWP and a second BWP, where the configuration parameters of the first/second BWP may comprise first/second downlink control information configuration parameters comprising first/second search space configuration parameters as spoken of on page 29, paragraph [0287].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the reception of search space configuration parameters by a wireless device as taught in Babaei to the system of Lee in order to ensure resource allocation is performed in accordance with a particular search space configuration by providing explicit notification of the configuration parameters to wireless devices, thereby improving the reliability and accuracy of the resource allocation as spoken of on page 29, paragraph [0287] of Babaei.
Regarding claim 2, Lee further teaches where a UE 100 determines (identifies) a first set of candidate number(s) of a first set of aggregation level(s) for receiving a first DCI, where the first DCI is a multiple-cell scheduling DCI and includes control information for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells; where the UE 100 determines the first set of candidate number(s) of the first set of aggregation level(s) according to (associated with) at least one of the search space configurations respectively assigned to the multiple cells (e.g. the second serving cell); and where an aggregation level indicates how many CCEs are allocated for a PDCCH (counting of PDCCH and control channel elements (CCEs)) as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052].
Regarding claim 3, Lee further teaches where a UE 100 (user equipment) may perform blind detection of a PDCCH according to a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (first search space) associated with the scheduling cell (first serving cell) and a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (second search space) associated with the scheduled cell (second serving cell), so as to receive DCI for scheduling multiple cells and/or DCI for scheduling one of the multiple cells (e.g. on second serving cell), where there is a linkage between the search space of the scheduled cell and the search space of the scheduling cell (linked to each other) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0044]; where search space configurations 301 and 303 of Figure 3 may have the same search space ID (identifier) as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0045].
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches where a PDCCH candidate may include Q CCEs with consecutive logical CCE indices, wherein Q is the aggregation level of the CCEs (i.e., the number of CCEs utilized for a DCI) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0043]; and where the aggregation level for receiving a first DCI is for a multiple-cell scheduling DCI for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0051].
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches where a UE 100 (user equipment) may perform blind detection of a PDCCH according to a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (first search space) associated with the scheduling cell (first serving cell) and a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (second search space) associated with the scheduled cell (second serving cell), so as to receive DCI for scheduling multiple cells and/or DCI for scheduling one of the multiple cells (e.g. on second serving cell), where there is a linkage between the search space of the scheduled cell and the search space of the scheduling cell (linked to each other) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0044]; where search space configurations 301 and 303 of Figure 3 may have the same search space ID (identifier) as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0045]; and where the UE 100 of Figure 4 includes a processor 120 coupled to transceiver 140 and storage medium 130 (memory).
Lee also teaches where a UE 100 determines (identifies) a first set of candidate number(s) of a first set of aggregation level(s) for receiving a first DCI, where the first DCI is a multiple-cell scheduling DCI and includes control information for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells; where the UE 100 determines the first set of candidate number(s) of the first set of aggregation level(s) according to (associated with) at least one of the search space configurations respectively assigned to the multiple cells (e.g. the second serving cell); and where an aggregation level indicates how many CCEs are allocated for a PDCCH (counting of PDCCH and control channel elements (CCEs)) as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052].
Lee does not explicitly teach “receive, from a base station on a first serving cell, configuration information on a search space”.
However, Babaei teaches a method a system for wireless control channel transmission where a wireless device 112, in communication with a gNB 122 (base station), may receive configuration parameters of a plurality of bandwidth parts (BWPs) of a first BWP and a second BWP, where the configuration parameters of the first/second BWP may comprise first/second downlink control information configuration parameters comprising first/second search space configuration parameters as spoken of on page 29, paragraph [0287].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the reception of search space configuration parameters by a wireless device as taught in Babaei to the system of Lee in order to ensure resource allocation is performed in accordance with a particular search space configuration by providing explicit notification of the configuration parameters to wireless devices, thereby improving the reliability and accuracy of the resource allocation as spoken of on page 29, paragraph [0287] of Babaei.
Regarding claim 6, Lee further teaches where a UE 100 determines (identifies) a first set of candidate number(s) of a first set of aggregation level(s) for receiving a first DCI, where the first DCI is a multiple-cell scheduling DCI and includes control information for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells; where the UE 100 determines the first set of candidate number(s) of the first set of aggregation level(s) according to (associated with) at least one of the search space configurations respectively assigned to the multiple cells (e.g. the second serving cell); and where an aggregation level indicates how many CCEs are allocated for a PDCCH (counting of PDCCH and control channel elements (CCEs)) as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052].
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches where a UE 100 (user equipment) may perform blind detection of a PDCCH according to a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (first search space) associated with the scheduling cell (first serving cell) and a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (second search space) associated with the scheduled cell (second serving cell), so as to receive DCI for scheduling multiple cells and/or DCI for scheduling one of the multiple cells (e.g. on second serving cell), where there is a linkage between the search space of the scheduled cell and the search space of the scheduling cell (linked to each other) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0044]; where search space configurations 301 and 303 of Figure 3 may have the same search space ID (identifier) as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0045].
Regarding claim 8, Lee further teaches where a PDCCH candidate may include Q CCEs with consecutive logical CCE indices, wherein Q is the aggregation level of the CCEs (i.e., the number of CCEs utilized for a DCI) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0043]; and where the aggregation level for receiving a first DCI is for a multiple-cell scheduling DCI for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0051].
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches where a UE 100 (user equipment) may perform blind detection of a PDCCH according to a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (first search space) associated with the scheduling cell (first serving cell) and a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (second search space) associated with the scheduled cell (second serving cell), so as to receive DCI for scheduling multiple cells and/or DCI for scheduling one of the multiple cells (e.g. on second serving cell), where there is a linkage between the search space of the scheduled cell and the search space of the scheduling cell (linked to each other) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0044]; where search space configurations 301 and 303 of Figure 3 may have the same search space ID (identifier) as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0045].
Lee also teaches where a UE 100 determines (identifies) a first set of candidate number(s) of a first set of aggregation level(s) for receiving a first DCI, where the first DCI is a multiple-cell scheduling DCI and includes control information for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells; where the UE 100 determines the first set of candidate number(s) of the first set of aggregation level(s) according to (associated with) at least one of the search space configurations respectively assigned to the multiple cells (e.g. the second serving cell); and where an aggregation level indicates how many CCEs are allocated for a PDCCH (counting of PDCCH and control channel elements (CCEs)) as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052].
Lee does not explicitly teach “transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), configuration information on a search space”.
However, Babaei teaches a method a system for wireless control channel transmission where a wireless device 112, in communication with a gNB 122 (base station), may receive configuration parameters (from the gNB) of a plurality of bandwidth parts (BWPs) of a first BWP and a second BWP, where the configuration parameters of the first/second BWP may comprise first/second downlink control information configuration parameters comprising first/second search space configuration parameters as spoken of on page 29, paragraph [0287].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the reception of search space configuration parameters by a wireless device as taught in Babaei to the system of Lee in order to ensure resource allocation is performed in accordance with a particular search space configuration by providing explicit notification of the configuration parameters to wireless devices, thereby improving the reliability and accuracy of the resource allocation as spoken of on page 29, paragraph [0287] of Babaei.
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches where a UE 100 determines (identifies) a first set of candidate number(s) of a first set of aggregation level(s) for receiving a first DCI, where the first DCI is a multiple-cell scheduling DCI and includes control information for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells; where the UE 100 determines the first set of candidate number(s) of the first set of aggregation level(s) according to (associated with) at least one of the search space configurations respectively assigned to the multiple cells (e.g. the second serving cell); and where an aggregation level indicates how many CCEs are allocated for a PDCCH (counting of PDCCH and control channel elements (CCEs)) as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052].
Regarding claim 11, Lee further teaches where a UE 100 (user equipment) may perform blind detection of a PDCCH according to a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (first search space) associated with the scheduling cell (first serving cell) and a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (second search space) associated with the scheduled cell (second serving cell), so as to receive DCI for scheduling multiple cells and/or DCI for scheduling one of the multiple cells (e.g. on second serving cell), where there is a linkage between the search space of the scheduled cell and the search space of the scheduling cell (linked to each other) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0044]; where search space configurations 301 and 303 of Figure 3 may have the same search space ID (identifier) as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0045].
Regarding claim 12, Lee further teaches where a PDCCH candidate may include Q CCEs with consecutive logical CCE indices, wherein Q is the aggregation level of the CCEs (i.e., the number of CCEs utilized for a DCI) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0043]; and where the aggregation level for receiving a first DCI is for a multiple-cell scheduling DCI for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0051].
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches where a UE 100 (user equipment) may perform blind detection of a PDCCH according to a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (first search space) associated with the scheduling cell (first serving cell) and a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (second search space) associated with the scheduled cell (second serving cell), so as to receive DCI for scheduling multiple cells and/or DCI for scheduling one of the multiple cells (e.g. on second serving cell), where there is a linkage between the search space of the scheduled cell and the search space of the scheduling cell (linked to each other) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0044]; where search space configurations 301 and 303 of Figure 3 may have the same search space ID (identifier) as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0045].
Lee also teaches where a UE 100 determines (identifies) a first set of candidate number(s) of a first set of aggregation level(s) for receiving a first DCI, where the first DCI is a multiple-cell scheduling DCI and includes control information for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells; where the UE 100 determines the first set of candidate number(s) of the first set of aggregation level(s) according to (associated with) at least one of the search space configurations respectively assigned to the multiple cells (e.g. the second serving cell); and where an aggregation level indicates how many CCEs are allocated for a PDCCH (counting of PDCCH and control channel elements (CCEs)) as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052].
Lee does not explicitly teach “a base station on a first serving cell comprising: at least one transceiver, at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver, and at least one memory, communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the base station to: “transmit, to a user equipment (UE), configuration information on a search space”.
However, Babaei teaches a method a system for wireless control channel transmission where a wireless device 112, in communication with a gNB 122 (base station), may receive configuration parameters (from the gNB) of a plurality of bandwidth parts (BWPs) of a first BWP and a second BWP, where the configuration parameters of the first/second BWP may comprise first/second downlink control information configuration parameters comprising first/second search space configuration parameters as spoken of on page 29, paragraph [0287].
Babaei also teaches where a base station communicates with wireless devices using RF transmissions and receptions via RF transceivers as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0070]; and where a base station may include one or more processors and memory that may store instructions as spoken of on page 45, paragraph [0420].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the reception of search space configuration parameters by a wireless device as taught in Babaei to the system of Lee in order to ensure resource allocation is performed in accordance with a particular search space configuration by providing explicit notification of the configuration parameters to wireless devices, thereby improving the reliability and accuracy of the resource allocation as spoken of on page 29, paragraph [0287] of Babaei.
Regarding claim 14, Lee further teaches where a UE 100 determines (identifies) a first set of candidate number(s) of a first set of aggregation level(s) for receiving a first DCI, where the first DCI is a multiple-cell scheduling DCI and includes control information for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells; where the UE 100 determines the first set of candidate number(s) of the first set of aggregation level(s) according to (associated with) at least one of the search space configurations respectively assigned to the multiple cells (e.g. the second serving cell); and where an aggregation level indicates how many CCEs are allocated for a PDCCH (counting of PDCCH and control channel elements (CCEs)) as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052].
Regarding claim 15, Lee further teaches where a UE 100 (user equipment) may perform blind detection of a PDCCH according to a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (first search space) associated with the scheduling cell (first serving cell) and a search space configuration (configuration information on a search space) of a search space (second search space) associated with the scheduled cell (second serving cell), so as to receive DCI for scheduling multiple cells and/or DCI for scheduling one of the multiple cells (e.g. on second serving cell), where there is a linkage between the search space of the scheduled cell and the search space of the scheduling cell (linked to each other) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0044]; where search space configurations 301 and 303 of Figure 3 may have the same search space ID (identifier) as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0045].
Regarding claim 16, Lee further teaches where a PDCCH candidate may include Q CCEs with consecutive logical CCE indices, wherein Q is the aggregation level of the CCEs (i.e., the number of CCEs utilized for a DCI) as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0043]; and where the aggregation level for receiving a first DCI is for a multiple-cell scheduling DCI for scheduling PDSCHs on multiple cells as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0051].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1-16 have 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
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 MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467