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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication received June 26th, 2026. Claims 1-24 have been withdrawn. Claims 25-30 have been entered and are presented for examination.
Application 18/464,980 has US Provisional Application 63/382,239 11/03/2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 26th, 2026, have been fully considered, but deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which has been necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2025/0227718) in view of Liang et al. (US 2025/0220683).
Regarding claims 25, 28, Li et al. discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring configuration (paragraph 0190 [generating a downlink control information (DCI) configuration message to the UE to configure the UE to monitor, on the scheduling cell, for the DCI format for multi-cell scheduling]),
the PDCCH monitoring configuration being associated with a set of downlink control information (DCI) formats for monitoring on a set of component carriers (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 0085-0086, 0141, 0189 [a DCI is used to schedule PDSCH or PUSCH transmissions in more than one cell or component carrier (CC), where each PDSCH or PUSCH is scheduled in one cell or CC; DCI sizes configured to monitor; wherein the DCI format for multi-cell scheduling corresponds to one of format 0_3 or 1_3]);
and monitoring, on the set of component carriers, for a set of DCIs (paragraph 0091 [the DCIs for multi-cell scheduling may be transmitted in one or more scheduling cells])
wherein a first payload of a first DCI format, of the set of DCI formats, for a set of cells for multi-cell downlink scheduling is aligned with a second payload of a second DCI format, of the set of DCI formats, for the set of cells, wherein the first payload is aligned with the second payload in association with a quantity of DCI sizes in the PDCCH monitoring configuration exceeding a threshold (paragraphs 0137, 0143, 0145 [the DCI format for multi-cell scheduling is DCI format 0_3 or 1_3. If the number of sizes of DCI format for a cell exceeds the maximum numbers (M, N) of the cell, DCI size alignment is performed until the resulting number of DCI sizes do not exceed (M, N); if the number of DCI sizes still exceeds the maximum numbers (M, N) of a cell after doing the DCI size alignment in Section 7.3.1.0 of TS 38.212 and the size alignment of DCI format 0_3 and 1_3, the sizes of DCI format 0_1, 1_1, 0_3 & 1_3 are adjusted for alignment; a number of zero padding bits are generated for the DCI format 0_3 until the payload size equals that of the DCI format 1_3]).
Li et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein an error case comprises a scenario in which, after the alignment of the first payload with the second payload, the quantity of DCI sizes exceeds the threshold.
However, Liang et al. discloses wherein an error case comprises a scenario in which, after the alignment of the first payload with the second payload, the quantity of DCI sizes exceeds the threshold (paragraph 0084 [if the total number of DCI sizes configured to monitor PDCCH is more than 4 after size alignments of DCI formats for multi-cell scheduling, or if the total number of DCI sizes with C-RNTI configured to monitor PDCCH is more than 3 after size alignments of DCI formats for multi-cell scheduling, the network device 110 and/or the terminal device 120 may determine that the size alignments are failed]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize if the total number of DCI sizes configured to monitor PDCCH is more than a threshold after size alignments of DCI formats, the network and/or device would determine failure.
Regarding claims 26, 29, Li et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 25,28 and further discloses wherein first DCI format is DCI format 13 and the second DCI format is DCI format 03 (paragraph 0145 [the size alignment of DCI format 0_3 and 1_3, the sizes of DCI format 0_1, 1_1, 0_3 & 1_3 are adjusted for alignment]).
Regarding claims 27, 30, Li et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 25,28 and further discloses aligning sizes of the first DCI format and the second DCI format to align the first payload with the second payload (paragraph 0141 [If the number of information bits in the DCI format 0_3 prior to padding is less than the payload size of the DCI format 1_3 for scheduling the same serving cell, a number of zero padding bits are generated for the DCI format 0_3 until the payload size equals that of the DCI format 1_3]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights