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 Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 11, 14 and 17-20 have been amended, and claim 21 has been newly added. Claim 4 has been cancelled. The status of claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17 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.
Note: Please indicate all supporting paragraph(s) or figure(s) for any amended claim limitation(s) in the future office action to avoid misunderstanding or processing delay.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, that limitation that recites “count the blind detection operation for a scheduled cell as an amount of blind detection candidates equal to a number of combinations of the multiple different cells schedulable by the DCI message that include the scheduled cell” recited in line 10-14 constitutes new matter because it was not described in the original filed Application.
Claims 2-3 and 5-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency to claim 1.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hamidi–Sepehr et al (US20210037607A1).
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Hamidi–Sepehr’607 discloses an apparatus (see, Fig. 2-3, UE monitors PDCCH candidates according to gNB configuration based on UE capacity report, par 0039, 0240) comprising:
processing circuitry (see, Fig. 2, processor in UE, par 0039, 0042) to:
determine a maximum number of blind detections (requirement on number of BD can be equated to maximum number of blind detections, par 0103) that a user equipment (UE) is capable of monitoring for multiple component carrier (CC) scheduling by a single downlink control information (DCI) (see, UE determines requirement number of BD
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
for
N
c
e
l
l
s
D
L
,
μ
downlink cells with corresponding SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3) when UE monitoring PDCCH for downlink cells, par 0099, 0103-0104), the maximum number of blind detections determined per sub-carrier spacing (SCS) (see, requirement number of BD
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
determined for corresponding SCS configuration μ, 0103-0104);
determine the maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs (requirement on number of non-overlapping CCEs can be equated to maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs, par 0103) that the UE is capable of monitoring for multiple CC scheduling by the single DCI (see, UE determines requirement number of non-overlapping CCEs
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
for
N
c
e
l
l
s
D
L
,
μ
downlink cells with corresponding SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3) when UE monitoring PDCCH for downlink cells, par 0099, 0103-0104), the maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs determined per SCS (requirement number of non-overlapping CCEs
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
for corresponding SCS configuration μ, 0103-0104); and
generate an indication of the maximum number of blind detections per SCS and the maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs per SCS (see, obtaining requirement number of BD
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
and requirement number of non-overlapping CCEs
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
for
N
c
e
l
l
s
D
L
,
μ
downlink cells with corresponding SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3), par 0104); and
interface circuitry coupled to the processing circuitry (see, Fig. 2, network interface device coupled to processor, par 0043, 0045), the interface circuitry (Fig. 2, network interface device can be equated to interface circuitry, par 0043, 0045) to transmit the indication (see, UE reports maximum number of monitored PDCCH candidates (BD)
M
P
D
C
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
p
a
n
,
μ
and maximum number of non-overlapped CCEs
C
P
D
C
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
,
μ
to network, par 0103, 0109, 0111).
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 col. 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US20230040333A1, Priority Date: Jan 16, 2020) in view of Jazi et al (US20230057605A1, Priority Date: Jul 18, 2022).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions (Fig. 4, memory stores program for processor can be equated to instructions, par 0055) that, when executed, cause processing circuitry to (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI by executing program stored in memory, par 0051, 0055, 0067):
perform a blind detection operation on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) on a scheduling cell (see, UE blind decodes PDCCH on scheduling cell, par 0068, 0073), the blind detection operation for a downlink control information (DCI) message that schedules a plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in multiple different cells (see, blind decodes PDCCH for PDSCH or PUSCH scheduled by a combination DCI for multiple cells, par 0068, 0071, 0073).
Xu’333 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
with respect to a number of blind detection candidates supported by a user equipment (UE), count the blind detection operation for a scheduled cell as an amount of blind detection candidates equal to a number of combinations of the multiple different cells schedulable by the DCI message that include the scheduled cell.
However Jazi’605 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, BS communicates UEs and different networks in wireless network, par 0032, 0035) discloses:
with respect to a number of blind detection candidates supported by a user equipment (UE) (see, Blind decoding allocation on PDCCH candidates under multi-cell scheduling, par 0097), count the blind detection operation for a scheduled cell as an amount of blind detection candidates equal to a number of combinations of the multiple different cells schedulable by the DCI message that include the scheduled cell (see, UE counts PDCCH candidates for blind detection as a fraction of a number of PDCCH candidates that the UE can monitor for a set of or subset of co-scheduled cells with single DCI performs multi-cell, par 0097, 0309. Noted, set of or subset of co-scheduled cells can be equated to combinations of the multiple different cells schedulable. Noted further, if a set of co-scheduled cells that includes 4 cells, UE counts a PDCCH candidate for 4-cell scheduling as ¼ of a PDCCH candidate for each cell from the set of 4 configured cells; if subset of the configured cells including 2 cells, same rule applies, par 0097).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media as taught by Jazi’605 into that of Xu’333. The motivation would have been to perform PDCCH monitoring for multi-cell scheduling (par 0004).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1 (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067) wherein the instructions (Fig. 4, memory stores program for processor can be equated to instructions, par 0055), when executed, cause the processing circuitry to (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI by executing program stored in memory, par 0051, 0055, 0067):
generate (selects capability based on conditions can be equated to generate, par 0088) an indication of the number of blinddetection candidates for provision to a base station (see, UE reports PDCCH blind decode capability (e.g., pdcch-BlindDetectionCA) to BS based on conditions (and thus selects capability based on conditions), par 0074, 0088).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2 (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067), wherein to provide the indication of the number of blind detection candidates includes to provide a pdcch-BlindDetectionCA parameter (pdcch-BlindDetectionCA, par 0074) that indicates the number of blind detection candidates (see, UE reports its PDCCH blind decode capability by pdcch-BlindDetectionCA for maximum number of monitored PDCCH candidates, par 0074, 0076), a pdcch-BlindDetectionMCG-UE parameter that indicates the number of blind detection candidates, or a pdcch-BlindDetectionSCG-UE that indicates the number of blind detection candidates (note, the examiner picks option to reject).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1 (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067), wherein the instructions (Fig. 4, memory stores program for processor can be equated to instructions, par 0055), when executed, cause the processing circuitry to (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI by executing program stored in memory, par 0051, 0055, 0067):
determine a number of component carriers (CCs) (Ncells cap (reference number of configured cells) can be equated to number of component carriers (CCs), par 0074) that the UE can support (see, UE determines Ncells cap (reference number of configured cells) according to UE is/is not configured with NR-DC, set to PDCCH blind decode capability when configured with NR-DC, par 0074); and
generate an indication of the number of CCs for provision to a base station
provide an indication of the number of CCs (number of cells can be equated to number of CCs) to a base station (see, UE sets and reports number of cells in the supported PDCCH blind detection capability, par 0074, claim 15).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu’333 in view of Jazi’605 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hamidi–Sepehr et al (US20210037607A1).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 5 (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067), wherein the instructions (Fig. 4, memory stores program for processor can be equated to instructions, par 0055), when executed, cause the processing circuitry to (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI by executing program stored in memory, par 0051, 0055, 0067).
The combination of Xu’333 and Jazi’605 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receive a CC configuration that indicates one or more CCs to be configured for the UE;
determine that a number of the one or more CCs exceeds the number of CCs that the UE can support; and
scale a number of blind detections to be performed per cell based at least in part on the number of the one or more CCs exceeding the number of CCs that the UE can support.
However Hamidi–Sepehr’607 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 3, UE monitors PDCCH candidates according to gNB configuration based on UE capacity report, par 0240) discloses:
receive a CC configuration that indicates one or more CCs to be configured for the UE (see, UE is configured with Ncells DL,μ downlink cells);
determine that a number of the one or more CCs (number of DL-CCs aggregated can be equated to number of the one or more CCs, par 0065) exceeds the number of CCs that the UE can support (see, when number of DL-CCs aggregated greater than 4 DL-CCs as UE capability, par 0065); and
scale a number of blind detections (scaling factor to numbers of BDs can be equated to scale a number of blind detections, par 0065) to be performed per cell (scaling factor for CA (carrier aggregation) and thus per cell, par 0065) based at least in part on the number of the one or more CCs (number of DL-CCs aggregated can be equated to number of the one or more CCs, par 0065) exceeding the number of CCs (4 DL-CCs as UE capability can be equated to number of CCs that the UE can support, par 0065) that the UE can support (see, UE capability for PDCCH BDs in CA used as a scaling factor to determine numbers of BDs for CA when number of DL-CCs aggregated greater than 4 DL-CCs, par 0065).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the non-transitory computer-readable media as taught by Hamidi–Sepehr’607 into that of Xu’333 modified by Jazi’605. The motivation would have been to reduce the impact from dropping of PDCCH candidates upon exceeding the BD or channel estimation minimum requirements (par 0065).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu’333 in view of Jazi’605 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosseini et al (US20210250753A1).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 modified by Jazi’605 discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1 (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067).
The combination of Xu’333 and Jazi’605 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein to perform the blind detection operation includes to monitor one or more symbols on the PDCCH in accordance with a configured feature group (FG).
However Hosseini’753 from the same field of endeavor (see, fig. 4, communication between UE and BSs according to UE capability, par 0062-0063) discloses:
wherein to perform the blind detection operation (BD (blind detection) can equated to blind detection operation, par 0110) includes to monitor one or more symbols (monitoring occasions including specific symbols in a slot can be equated to one or more symbols, par 0129) on the PDCCH (control channel (PDCCH) can be equated to PDCCH, par 0101) in accordance with a configured (configured UE capability including a set of values referred to as feature groups (FGs) can be equated to configured feature group (FG), par 0068-0069) feature group (FG) (see, Fig. 6 606, UE monitors first control information on control channel (PDCCH) by performing BDs on monitoring occasions (specific symbols) based on configured UE capability including feature groups, par 0068-0069, 0101, 0110).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the non-transitory computer-readable media as taught by Hosseini’753 into that of Xu’333 modified by Jazi’605. The motivation would have been to improve 5G NR technology and other multi-access technologies (par 0004).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1 (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067), wherein the instructions (Fig. 4, memory stores program for processor can be equated to instructions, par 0055), when executed, cause the processing circuitry to (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI by executing program stored in memory, par 0051, 0055, 0067).
The combination of Xu’333 and Jazi’605 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
determine one or more feature groups (FGs) supported by the UE for performing detection on the PDCCH; and
generate an indication of the one or more FGs for provision to a base station.
However Hosseini’753 from the same field of endeavor (see, fig. 4, communication between UE and BSs according to UE capability, par 0062-0063) discloses:
determine one or more feature groups (FGs) (set of values referred to as feature groups (FGs) can be equated to feature groups (FGs), par 0068) supported (UE capability can be equated to supported by UE, par 0068) by the UE for performing detection (BD for control information on control channel can be equated to detection on PDCCH, par 0078-0079) on the PDCCH (see, UE generates UE capability information including set of values (FGs) performing BD for control information on control channel, par 0068, 0078-0079); and
generate an indication (UE Capability Information message including a set of values (FGs) can be equated to indication of the one or more FGs, par 0068-0069) of the one or more FGs for provision to a base station (see, UE generates and reports UE capability information including set of values (FGs) performing BD for control information on control channel, par 0067-0069, 0078-0079).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the non-transitory computer-readable media as taught by Hosseini’753 into that of Xu’333 modified by Jazi’605. The motivation would have been to improve 5G NR technology and other multi-access technologies (par 0004).
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu’333 in view of Jazi’605 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kittichokechai et al (US20220329399A1, Priority Date: Aug 04, 2020).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1 (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067), wherein the instructions (Fig. 4, memory stores program for processor can be equated to instructions, par 0055), when executed, cause the processing circuitry to (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI by executing program stored in memory, par 0051, 0055, 0067).
The combination of Xu’333 and Jazi’605 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
determine a maximum number of blind detections and non-overlapping control channel elements (CCEs) supported by the UE; and
generate, for provision to a base station, an indication of the maximum number of blind detections and the non-overlapping CCEs supported by the UE.
However Kittichokechai’399 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2 and 9, UE communicates with gNB based on PDCCH monitoring capability information reporting, par 0118) discloses:
determine a maximum number of blind detections (blind decode limit can be equated to maximum number of blind detections, par 0181) and non-overlapping control channel elements (CCEs) (CCE limit (maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs) can be equated to non-overlapping control channel elements (CCEs), par 0181-0182) supported by the UE (see, Fig. 11 step 208, UE selects blind decode limit and CCE limit, par 0181); and
generate, for provision to a base station, an indication (Fig. 2, PDCCH monitoring capability information can be equated to indication, par 0118) of the maximum number of blind detections (maximum number of blind decodes can be equated to maximum number of blind detections, par 0122) and the non-overlapping CCEs (maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs can equated to maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs, par 0121) supported by the UE (see, Fig. 2, UE determines and sends to BS the PDCCH monitoring capability information including maximum number of blind decodes and maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs, par 0118, 0121-0122, 0128-0129).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the non-transitory computer-readable media as taught by Hosseini’753 into that of Xu’333 modified by Jazi’605. The motivation would have been to provide PDCCH enhancement to support increased PDCCH monitoring capability (par 0003).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Xu’333 modified by Jazi’605 discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9 (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067).
The combination of Xu’333 and Jazi’605 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein to generate the indication of the maximum number of blind detections and the non-overlapping CCEs includes to generate a table that indicates the maximum number of blind detections and the non-overlapping CCEs to the base station.
However Kittichokechai’399 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2 and 9, UE communicates with gNB based on PDCCH monitoring capability information reporting, par 0118) discloses:
wherein to generate the indication of the maximum number of blind detections (maximum number of blind decodes can be equated to maximum number of blind detections, par 0122) and the non-overlapping CCEs (maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs can equated to maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs, par 0121) includes to generate a table (table indicating maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs and BD limit for corresponding (X,Y,μ) reported together with (X,Y), par 0137) that indicates the maximum number of blind detections and the non-overlapping CCEs to the base station (see, Fig. 2, UE selects and sends to BS the PDCCH monitoring capability information including maximum number of blind decodes and maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs for each of the combinations with corresponding SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3) through table (table with combinations similar to table 3), par 0069, 0120-0122, 0137, 0154, table 3. Noted, both maximum number of blind decodes and maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs included in PDCCH monitoring capability information, par 0120-0122; noted further, signaled capability (Xj, Yj, Cj, μ) with SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3) , table 3, par 0154. Noted further, determining the maximum value by selecting the limiting value based on a number of physical downlink control channel monitoring spans in a slot for a subcarrier spacing μ, par 0069).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the non-transitory computer-readable media as taught by Hosseini’753 into that of Xu’333 modified by Jazi’605. The motivation would have been to provide PDCCH enhancement to support increased PDCCH monitoring capability (par 0003).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US20250081202A1, PCT For Priority Date: Jan 07, 2022) in view of Oh et al (US20230247648A1, Priority Date: May 27, 2021).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Choi’202 discloses a method (see, Fig. 9, wireless communication includes wireless devices, BSs, and a network, par 0148) comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of blind detection capabilities for the UE (see, BS receives report of UE capability pdcch-BlindDetectionCA, par 0097), the indication of blind detection capabilities indicating a number of component carriers (CCs) (see, UE reports number of DL cells that UE is capable of performing BD/CCE in UE capability pdcch-BlindDetectionCA, par 0097).
Choi’202 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
generating a downlink control information (DCI) that includes a configuration for two or more cells, the DCI including at least one field with a field size determined based at least in part on a maximum size required by the number of CCs.
However Oh’648 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, BS communicates UEs in wireless communication system, par 0048) discloses:
generating a downlink control information (DCI) that includes a configuration for two or more cells (see, BS generates DCI including configuration information to schedule multiple cells, abstract, par 0410), the DCI including at least one field (CIF (carrier indicator field) or GIF (cell group indicator field) in DCI can be equated to DCI including at least one field, abstract) with a field size (size of CIF or GIF can be equated to field size, abstract) determined based at least in part on a maximum size required by the number of CCs (see, carrierIndicatorSize or cellgroupIndicatorSize indicates maximum number of cells scheduled by DCI and configures size of CIF or GIF in DCI, abstract, par 0344. Noted, carrierIndicatorSize or cellgroupIndicatorSize for maximum number of cells can be equated to maximum size required by the number of CCs).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Oh’648 into that of Choi’202. The motivation would have been to schedule one or more PDSCHs in one or more cells via one DCI (par 0344).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Choi’202 discloses the method of claim 11 (see, Fig. 9, wireless communication includes wireless devices, BSs, and a network, par 0148), wherein the indication of blind detection capabilities includes an indication of a number of blind detections supported by the UE (see, UE reports UE capabilities including pdcch-BlindDetectionCA, par 0097. Noted, UE capabilities including blinddetectionCA and number of DL cells for BD/CCE, par 0097).
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Choi’202 discloses the method of claim 12 (see, Fig. 9, wireless communication includes wireless devices, BSs, and a network, par 0148),
wherein the indication of the number of blind detections is received via a pdcch-BlindDetectionCA parameter (see, UE reports UE capabilities including pdcch-BlindDetectionCA, par 0097), a pdcch-BlindDetectionMCG- UE parameter, or a pdcch-BlindDetectionSCG-UE (note, the examiner picks an option to reject).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi’202 in view of Oh’648 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Xu et al (US20230040333A1, Priority Date: Jan 16, 2020).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Choi’202 discloses the method of claim 11 (see, Fig. 9, wireless communication includes wireless devices, BSs, and a network, par 0148), wherein the indication of blind detection capabilities includes an indication of a number of component carriers (CCs) (see, UE reports number of DL cells that UE is capable of performing BD/CCE in UE capability pdcch-BlindDetectionCA, par 0097)
The combination of Choi’202 and Oh’648 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein a number of the two or more cells for configuration is based at least in part on the number of CCs
However Xu’333 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 4 and 7, UE communicates with BS through cells scheduled by single DCI, par 0051, 0067) discloses:
wherein the indication of blind detection capabilities (supported PDCCH blind detection capability reported can be equated to indication of blind detection capabilities, claim 15) includes an indication of a number of component carriers (CCs) (see, number of cells reported in the supported PDCCH blind detection capability, par 0074, claim 15), wherein a number of the two or more cells for configuration (Ncells cap (reference number of configured cells), par 0074) is based at least in part on the number of CCs (see, UE determines Ncells cap (reference number of configured cells according to UE is/is not configured with NR-DC by setting to number of cells in PDCCH blind decode capability when configured with NR-DC, par 0074, claim 15).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Xu’333 into that of Choi’202 modified by Oh’648. The motivation would have been to monitor for a combination DCI scheduling data and/or reference signal (RS) transmissions in multiple cells (par 0079).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi’202 in view of Oh’648 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hosseini et al (US20210250753A1).
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Choi’202 modified by Oh’648 discloses the method of claim 11 (see, Fig. 9, wireless communication includes wireless devices, BSs, and a network, par 0148).
The combination of Choi’202 and Oh’648 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the indication of blind detection capabilities includes an indication of one or more feature groups (FGs) supported by the UE, and wherein the method comprises:
determining an FG for the UE based at least in part on the one or more FGs supported by the UE, wherein the configuration for the two or more cells includes a configuration for the determined FG to be utilized by the UE.
However Hosseini’753 from the same field of endeavor (see, fig. 4, communication between UE and BSs according to UE capability, par 0062-0063) discloses:
wherein the indication of blind detection capabilities includes an indication of one or more feature groups (FGs) supported by the UE (see, Fig. 4 424, BS receives the UE Capability Information message including a set of values (FGs), par 0067-0069), and wherein the method comprises:
determining an FG (feature group can be equated to FG, par 0109) for the UE based at least in part on the one or more FGs supported by the UE (see, BS receives UE capability information indicating feature group(s) corresponding to different CC, par 0109), wherein the configuration for the two or more cells (configured CORESET associated with control information on first set of CCs can be equated to configuration for the two or more cells, par 0109-0110) includes a configuration for the determined FG (UE capability including feature groups on different CC for BS to configure CORESET can be equated to determined FG, par 0109-0110) to be utilized by the UE (see, BS configures UE with CORESET associated with control information on first set of CCs based on UE capability information indicating feature group(s) corresponding to different CCs, par 0109-0110).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Hosseini’753 into that of Choi’202 modified by Oh’648. The motivation would have been to improve 5G NR technology and other multi-access technologies (par 0004).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi’202 in view of Oh’648 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Choi et al (US20250301482A1, Pro 63339508 Priority Date: May 08, 2022).
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Choi’202 modified by Oh’648 discloses the method of claim 11 (see, Fig. 9, wireless communication includes wireless devices, BSs, and a network, par 0148).
The combination of Choi’202 and Oh’648 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: determining a reference cell associated with the UE, wherein the DCI has one or more DCI field sizes determined based at least in part on the reference cell.
However Choi’482 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 5, wireless devices communicates with BSs and network in a communication system, par 0233) discloses:
determining a reference cell (reference cell of UE can be equated to reference cell associated with the UE, par 0153) associated with the UE (see, reference cell of UE defined as a cell where m-cc DCI is transmitted, a cell with the lowest index, or a cell with the highest index, par 0513), wherein the DCI has one or more DCI field sizes determined (DCI size alignment can be equated to one or more DCI field sizes determined) based at least in part on the reference cell (see, DCI size alignment for the m-cc DCI performed according to reference cell , par 0155).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Choi’482 into that of Choi’202 modified by Oh’648. The motivation would have been to efficiently monitor control signal in wireless communication system (par 0003).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamidi–Sepehr’607 in view of Kittichokechai et al (US20220329399A1, Priority Date: Aug 04, 2020).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Hamidi–Sepehr’607 discloses the apparatus (see, Fig. 2-3, UE monitors PDCCH candidates according to gNB configuration based on UE capacity report, par 0039, 0240).
Hamidi–Sepehr’607 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein generating the indication of the maximum number of blind detections per SCS and the maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs per SCS includes generating a table that indicates the maximum number of blind detections per SCS and the maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs per SCS.
However Kittichokechai’399 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2 and 9, UE communicates with gNB based on PDCCH monitoring capability information reporting, par 01183) discloses:
wherein generating the indication of the maximum number of blind detections per SCS (maximum number of blind decodes with corresponding SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3) can be equated to maximum number of blind detections per SCS, table 3, par 0122) and the maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs per SCS (maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs with corresponding SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3) can equated to maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs per SCS, table 3, par 0121) includes generating a table (table indicating maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs and BD limit for corresponding (X,Y,μ) reported together with (X,Y), par 0137) that indicates the maximum number of blind detections per SCS and the maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs per SCS (see, Fig. 2, UE selects and sends to BS the PDCCH monitoring capability information including maximum number of blind decodes and maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs for each of the combinations with corresponding SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3) through table (table with combinations similar to table 3), par 0069, 0120-0122, 0137, 0154, table 3. Noted, both maximum number of blind decodes and maximum number of non-overlapping CCEs included in PDCCH monitoring capability information, par 0120-0122; noted further, signaled capability (Xj, Yj, Cj, μ) with SCS configuration μ (μ=0, 1, 2, 3) , table 3, par 0154. Noted further, determining the maximum value by selecting the limiting value based on a number of physical downlink control channel monitoring spans in a slot for a subcarrier spacing μ, par 0069).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the apparatus as taught by Kittichokechai’399 into that of Hamidi–Sepehr’607. The motivation would have been to provide PDCCH enhancement to support increased PDCCH monitoring capability (par 0003).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamidi–Sepehr’607 in view of MolavianJazi et al (US20230354331A1, Pro 63336857 Priority Date: Apr 29, 2022).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Hamidi–Sepehr’607 discloses the apparatus (see, Fig. 2-3, UE monitors PDCCH candidates according to gNB configuration based on UE capacity report, par 0039, 0240), wherein the processing circuitry (see, Fig. 2, processor in UE, par 0039, 0042) is to.
Hamidi–Sepehr’607 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
determine a number of CCs that the UE can support for multiple CC scheduling by the single DCI; and
generate an indication of the number of CCs for provision to a base station.
However MolavianJazi’331 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 10, UE distinguishes multi-cell scheduling DCI format from single-cell scheduling DCI format according to DCI size, par 0510-0511) discloses:
determine a number of CCs that the UE can support (maximum number of co-scheduled cells per PDCCH monitoring occasion can be equated to a number of CCs that the UE can support, par 0449) for multiple CC scheduling (multi-cell scheduling can be equated to multiple CC scheduling, par 0097) by the single DCI (see, UE reports maximum number of co-scheduled cells per PDCCH monitoring occasion for multi-cell scheduling using a single DCI format depending on operating frequency band (and thus UE selects maximum number according to operating frequency band), par 0097, 0449); and
generate an indication (report can be equated to indication, par 0449) of the number of CCs for provision to a base station (see, UE creates and reports maximum number of co-scheduled cells per PDCCH monitoring occasion in capability report, par 0188, 0449. Noted, capability created according to different condition, par 0192).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the apparatus as taught by MolavianJazi’331 into that of Hamidi–Sepehr’607. The motivation would have been to provide methods for PDCCH monitoring with multi-cell scheduling (par 0004).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamidi–Sepehr’607 in view of Hosseini’753, and further in view of Xu et al (US 20110149886 A1).
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Hamidi–Sepehr’607 discloses the apparatus (see, Fig. 2-3, UE monitors PDCCH candidates according to gNB configuration based on UE capacity report, par 0039, 0240), wherein the processing circuitry (see, Fig. 2, processor in UE, par 0039, 0042) is to.
determine one or more feature groups (FGs) supported by the UE for multiple CC scheduling by the single DCI;
generate an indication of the one or more FGs for provision to a base station;
receive, from the base station, an indication of an FG from the one or more FGs for configuration; and
perform blind detections based at least in part on the FG.
However Hosseini’753 from the same field of endeavor (see, fig. 4, communication between UE and BSs according to UE capability, par 0062-0063) discloses:
determine one or more feature groups (FGs) (set of values referred to as feature groups (FGs) can be equated to feature groups (FGs), par 0068) supported (UE capability can be equated to supported by UE, par 0068) by the UE for performing detection (BD for control information on control channel can be equated to detection on PDCCH, par 0078-0079) on the PDCCH (see, UE generates UE capability information including set of values (FGs) performing BD for control information on control channel, par 0068, 0078-0079); and
generate an indication of the one or more FGs (UE Capability Information message including a set of values (FGs) can be equated to indication of the one or more FGs, par 0068-0069) for provision to a base station (see, Fig. 4 424, UE generates and transmits to BS the UE Capability Information message including a set of values (FGs), par 0067-0069).
perform blind detections (BDs can be equated to blind detections, par 0108) based at least in part on the FG (see, network configures communication including blind detections with UE according to UE capability of FG, par 0006, 0107-0108, 0110. Note, feature group (set of values) defines monitoring occasions can be equated to FG, par 0068, 0129).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the UE as taught by Hosseini’753 into that of Hamidi–Sepehr’607. The motivation would have been to improve 5G NR technology and other multi-access technologies (par 0004).
The combination of Hamidi–Sepehr’607 and Hosseini’753 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receive, from the base station, an indication of an FG from the one or more FGs for configuration.
However Xu’886 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 3, UE receives downlink transmit antenna configuration from eNB, par 0123) discloses:
receive, from the base station (eNB can be equated to base station, par 0021), an indication of an FG (IOT feature group indication for 4-tx feature can be equated to FG, par 0019) from the one or more FGs (feature groups can be equated to one or more FGs, par 0019) for configuration (see, eNB indicates 4-tx transmission capability (IOT feature group indication) through another CRC masking or RRC signaling to UE, par 0019, 0021-0022).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the UE as taught by Xu’886 into that of Hamidi–Sepehr’607 modified by Hosseini’753. The motivation would have been support different antenna configurations simultaneously for different UEs (par 0015).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi’202 in view of Oh’648 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hamidi–Sepehr’607.
Regarding claim 21 (Currently Amended), Choi’202 modified by Oh’648 discloses the method of claim 11 (see, Fig. 9, wireless communication includes wireless devices, BSs, and a network, par 0148), further comprising.
The combination of Choi’202 and Oh’648 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
generating a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate configuration for the two or more cells, the PDCCH candidate configuration to overbook PDCCH candidates for a primary cell of the two or more cells, wherein overbooking is limited to the primary cell of the two or more cells.
However Hamidi–Sepehr’607 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 3, UE monitors PDCCH candidates according to gNB configuration based on UE capacity report, par 0240) discloses:
generating a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate configuration for the two or more cells (see, configured and reconfigured UE with slot-level or span-based PDCCH monitoring with PDCCH monitoring configuration for the scheduled cells, par 0074-0076, 0163), the PDCCH candidate configuration to overbook PDCCH candidates (overbook PDCCH candidates, par 0065) for a primary cell of the two or more cells (see, PDCCH monitoring with PDCCH monitoring configuration for the scheduled cells by applying overbooking rules including no overbooking on scells for CA (carrier aggregation) mode (and thus only applied to pcell), table 1, par 0076, 0163), wherein overbooking is limited to the primary cell of the two or more cells (see, Network ensures there is no overbooking in SCells for CA (carrier aggregation) mode (and thus only applied to pcell), table 1, par 0070).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Hamidi–Sepehr’607 into that of Choi’202 modified by Oh’648. The motivation would have been to reduce the impact from dropping of PDCCH candidates upon exceeding the BD or channel estimation minimum requirements (par 0065).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2844. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, KWANG YAO can be reached on (571)272-3182. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/XUAN LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights