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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10-11 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Applicant respectfully submits that neither Gao nor Ying, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the limitations of the amended independent claims. Gao discloses PDCCH repetition but does not disclose that SPS is deactivated based on a HARQ process number. Ying does not even disclose PDCCH repetition and further fails to disclose that a terminal monitors two PDCCH candidates for detecting DCI with same information and that SPS PDSCH is deactivated based on a HARQ process number. Gao also fails to disclose SPS deactivation. Therefore, neither Gao nor Ying, or a combination thereof, teach or suggest the features of the amended independent claims. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that all prior art rejections be withdrawn.“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Ying expressly discloses the use of the HPN value to deactivate an activated SPS PDSCH where the HPN value corresponds to the SPS PDSCH configuration index or the HPN is set to a predetermined value to validate the deactivation (p289-290). Gao discloses PDCCH repetition, and Ying discloses deactivation of SPS PDSCHs using the HPN in a DCI; so in combination all limitations of claim 1 are taught.
In view of the above discussions the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 still stands.
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 1-15 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 claims 1, 5, 9, and 13, the limitation “the DCI” in line 11 is unclear. The claim states that two PDCCH candidates are monitored for DCI. Therefore it is unclear which DCI from which PDCCH candidates is being referred to by the limitation “the DCI” in line 11.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected as depending on the rejected claims 1, 5, 9, and 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2023/0156738) (“Gao”) in view of Ying et al. (US 2023/0156735) (“Ying”).
For claims 1, 5, 9, and 13; Gao discloses: control channel configuration (paragraph 131: a UE 412 is indicated from the network that PDCCH repetition may occur in the search space set, the UE 412 knows exactly what resources (i.e., CCEs) of a PDCCH that may be repeated, and the UE 412 knows this from either signaling by higher layers or from specification); monitoring two physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) candidates for detecting downlink control information (DCI) with same information based on the control channel configuration (paragraph 131: the PDCCH may be repeated in CCEs with the same CCE indices in different CORESETs. With such configuration, a UE 412 is indicated from the network that PDCCH repetition may occur in the search space set, the UE 412 knows exactly what resources (i.e., CCEs) of a PDCCH that may be repeated).
Gao does not expressly disclose, but Ying from similar fields of endeavor teaches: receiving, from a base station, semi persistent scheduling (SPS) configuration (paragraph 273-275: A RRC parameter (e.g., DL-SPSconfig-index) may be introduced to indicate the index of a SPS configuration) and; identifying whether activated SPS physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is deactivated based on hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number included in the DCI (paragraph 276, 277, 290: an HPN field in the DCI format may be reused to indicate which SPS configuration(s) and/or CG configuration(s) are activated and/or released/deactivated), wherein, based on a identifying that the activated SPS PDSCH is deactivated, decoding of data is not attempted in the deactivated SPS PDSCH (paragraph 270, 290: When SPS is released by upper layers, all the corresponding configurations shall be released… HPN field in the DCI format may be reused to indicate which SPS configuration(s) and/or CG configuration(s) are activated and/or released/deactivated).. Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Ying in the redundant PDDCH as described by Gao. The motivation is to improve resource configuration.
For claims 2, 6, 10, and 14; Gao discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Gao does not expressly disclose, but Ying from similar fields of endeavor teaches: in case that the DCI is associated with a configured scheduling-radio network temporary identifier (CS-RNTI) (paragraph 289: A UE may validate, for scheduling activation or scheduling release, a DL SPS assignment PDCCH or configured UL grant Type 2 PDCCH if the CRC of a corresponding DCI format (e.g., DCI format 0_0, DCI format 0_1, DCI format 0_2, DCI format 1_0, DCI format 1_1 and/or DCI format 0_2) is scrambled with a CS-RNTI), and that the HARQ process number, redundancy version, modulation and coding scheme, and frequency domain resource assignment fields included in the DCI are configured to preconfigured values, the activated SPS PDSCH is deactivated, in case that the DCI is associated with the CS-RNTI and that a HARQ process ID (identity) included in the SPS configuration is identical to a HARQ process number included in the DCI, the SPS PDSCH is deactivated, or in case that HARQ process numbers included in the DCI are consecutive, the activated SPS PDSCH is deactivated (paragraph 289-290: if HARQ process number field in the DCI format is set to all ‘0’s and/or Redundancy version field in the DCI format is set to ‘00’ and/or Modulation and coding scheme field in the DCI format is set to all ‘1’ and/or Frequency domain resource assignment is set to all ‘1’, the UE may consider the information in the DCI format as a valid release of DL SPS or configured UL grant Type 2. In a case that multiple configurations (multiple SPS configurations and/or CG configurations) are supported, a configuration index field in the DCI format may be used to indicate which SPS configuration(s) and/or CG configuration(s) are released/deactivated) (paragraph 289-290: an HPN field in the DCI format may be reused to indicate which SPS configuration(s) and/or CG configuration(s) are activated and/or released/deactivated. In this case, HPN field in the DCI format may not be used for DL SPS and UL grant Type 2 scheduling activation PDCCH validation and/or scheduling release PDCCH validation. In some examples, only a RV field may be used for DL SPS and UL grant Type 2 scheduling activation PDCCH validation). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Ying in the redundant PDDCH as described by Gao. The motivation is to improve resource configuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2023/0073095); Kim discloses when the same DCI/PDCCH is repetitively transmitted, a terminal may increase a DCI/PDCCH reception/decoding success rate through two methods (e.g., a soft combining method, and a multi-change method).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466