DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of group I corresponding to claims 21-28 the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 29-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group. Claims 21-28 are pending in this application.
No IDS has been submitted for consideration.
The specification and drawings have been accepted by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of co-pending Application No. 18/302355. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the copending Application No. 18/302355 with obvious wording variations.
Take an example of comparing claim 21-28 of pending application and claim 1-8 of co-pending application, provided in the table below:
Claims of the instant application
Claims of co-pending application 18/302,355
21.New) A processor of a base station configured to perform operations comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) configuration information comprising repetitions for PDCCH candidates that comprise Downlink Control Information (DCI);
encoding, based on at least the PDCCH configuration information, PDCCH candidates comprising multiple repetitions; and
transmitting, to the UE, the encoded PDCCH candidates.
22. (New) The processor of claim 21, wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted multiple times within a span.
23. (New) The processor of claim 21, wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted in multiple spans in a same slot.
24. (New) The processor of claim 21, wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted in multiple slots.
25. (New) The processor of claim 21, wherein the PDCCH configuration information comprises one of a number of repetitions, a time or frequency allocation for the PDCCH candidates, or an identification of a first and last repetition of the PDCCH candidates.
26. (New) The processor of claim 21, wherein the PDCCH configuration information is transmitted via a system information block (SIB).
27. (New) The processor of claim 26, wherein the SIB comprises SIB1.
28. (New) The processor of claim 26, wherein the SIB is received prior to decoding a PDCCH candidate.
1.A processor of a user equipment (UE) configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) configuration information comprising repetitions for PDCCH candidates that comprise Downlink Control Information (DCI);
receiving PDCCH candidates;
and decoding the PDCCH candidates based on the PDCCH configuration information.
2. The processor of claim 1, wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted multiple times within a span.
3. The processor of claim 1, wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted in multiple spans in a same slot.
4. The processor of claim 1, wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted in multiple slots.
5. The processor of claim 1, wherein the PDCCH configuration information comprises one of a number of repetitions, a time or frequency allocation for the PDCCH candidates, or an identification of a first and last repetition of the PDCCH candidates.
6. The processor of claim 1, wherein the PDCCH configuration information is received via a system information block (SIB).
7. The processor of claim 6, wherein the SIB comprises SIB1.
8. The processor of claim 6, wherein the SIB is received prior to decoding a PDCCH candidate.
As it can be seen from direct comparison, claim 1 of the co-pending application describes a User Equipment (UE) side of communication system that includes a UE and base station where the UE communicates with the base station. Claim 21 of the pending application describes the same communication system including a base station and UE, with obvious variation, For example, in claim 21 of the pending application, the base station transmits PDCCH configuration to a UE, while in the co-pending application the UE receives the PDCCH configuration from the base station.
Specifically, in the co-pending application the UE receives PDCCH configuration from the base station while in the pending application the base station transmit the PDCCH to the UE. The feature “PDCCH comprising: configuration information comprising repetitions for PDCCH candidates that comprise Downlink Control Information (DCI)” is identically claimed in the pending and co-pending application.
Further, the feature of “decoding the PDCCH candidates based on the PDCCH configuration information” in the co-pending application is an obvious variation of “encoding, based on at least the PDCCH configuration information, PDCCH candidates comprising multiple repetitions” because the UE decodes information sent by the base station, thus, the base station encodes that information prior to sending to the UE.
Further, the feature of “receiving (by the UE) PDCCH candidates” claimed by co-pending application corresponds to the limitation “transmitting, to the UE, the encoded PDCCH candidates” claimed by the pending application
Therefore, claim 21 of the pending application is an obvious variation of the claim 1 of the co-pending application.
Dependent claims 22-28 correspond to claims 2-8 of the co-pending application and they have the same obvious wording variations. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to come up the claims of the pending application based on claims of the co-pending application because the claim of the pending application essentially convey the same subject matter with obvious wording variations.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
21, 22, 26-28 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 2023/0156700) in view of Khoshnevisan (US 2022/0225368).
Referring to claim 21:
LIU discloses a processor of a base station configured to perform operations (FIG. 9, “base station 960”, “Processor 979”) comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) configuration information that comprise Downlink Control Information (DCI) (Par. 15, “base station . . . transmitting, to a user equipment (UE)”. Par. 14, “receiving, from a base station, information to configure a plurality of carriers for cross-carrier scheduling and to configure carrier indicator field (CIF) value”. Par. 178, “CIF value which is used in the scheduling cell to indicate a DCI format”, “UE may determine the received DCI format is applicable for which serving cell according to the CIF value of the received DCI format”. Par. 179, “the base station 160 may transmit, to the UE 102, on the scheduling cell, a DCI format”. Note that Downlink Control Information (DCI) Format is PDCCH configuration information and the UE receives it from the base station);
encoding, based on at least the PDCCH configuration information (Par. 95, “The base station 160 may include . . . one or encoders 109, one or more modulators 113”, Par. 104, “the base station operations module 182 may instruct the encoder 109 to encode transmission data 105 ”. Par. 135, “a UE may attempt to decode each PDCCH candidate of the search space set s according to the monitored DCI formats”. Par. 118, “a UE may monitor a set of PDCCH candidates in one or more CORESETs on the active DL BWP on each activated serving cell configured with PDCCH monitoring according to corresponding search space set where monitoring implies decoding each PDCCH candidate according to the monitored DCI formats”. Note that DCI format is equivalent to PDCCH configuration information and the UE decodes the PDCCH candidate according to the DCI format (equivalent to PDCCH candidate). Note that the encoders and modulator encode data for transmission. Further note that the UE may decode each PDCCH candidate of the search space set s according to the monitored DCI formats, thus, the base station must have encoded them),
transmitting, to the UE, the encoded PDCCH candidates (Par. 203, “The base station 160 … transmit, to the UE 102, a PDCCH candidate”, Par. 135, “a UE may attempt to decode each PDCCH candidate”. Par. 104, “the base station operations module 182 may instruct the encoder 109 to encode transmission data 105”. Par. 106, “The encoder 109 may encode transmission data 105 and/or other information 101”. Note that encoder of the base station encodes that transmission data and the base station transmits to the UE the PDCCH candidate).
LUI is not relied on for disclosing the claim limitation: DCI comprising repetitions for PDCCH candidates.
In an analogous art, Khoshnevisan discloses DCI comprising repetitions for PDCCH candidates (Par. 141, “the UE 115-a may receive … repetition of DCI within the first PDCCH candidate 210-a, the last PDCCH candidate 210-b”, note that the UE receives the DCI in repetition within the PDCCH candidate, where the PDCCH is a potential location for a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) transmission within a search space, the UE receives DCI which includes repetitions for PDCCH candidates).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of LIU by incorporating the teachings of Khoshnevisan in the format claimed, for the purpose of indicating to the user equipment the scheduling information of the PDCCH candidates, so the UE would know what to look for in the channel. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 22, the combination of LIU/Khoshnevisan discloses the processor of claim 21, wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted multiple times within a span (see Khoshnevisan, Par. 148, “The UE 115 may receive the one or more repetitions of DCI within the first PDCCH candidate”, note that the one or more repetitions of DCI reads on DCI transmitted multiple time (repeatedly) and further note that the DCI is via the PDCCH candidate and the PDCCH is a transmission with a search space, thus, the DCI transmitted multiple times is within a search span).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of LIU by incorporating the teachings of Khoshnevisan in the format claimed, for the purpose of informing the UE of the PDCCH configuration via the downlink channel information (DCI), so the UE would know what to look for in the channel. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 26, the combination of LIU/Khoshnevisan discloses the processor of claim 21, and further disclose the PDCCH configuration information is received via a system information block (SIB) (see LIU, Par. 126, “the information may be included in MIB and/or SIBs broadcasted by the base station … A base station may broadcast system information such as MIB, SIBs to indicate CORESET configuration or search space configuration to a UE”).
Referring to claim 27, the combination of LIU/Khoshnevisan discloses the processor of claim 26, wherein the SIB comprises SIB1 (see LIU, Par. 113, SIB1, Par. 114, “SIB1 … contain radio resource configuration information that is common for all UEs and barring information applied to the unified access control”. Note that SIB1 is included in SIB and is designed to transmit cell information including PDCCH configuration).
Referring to claim 28, the combination of LIU/Khoshnevisan discloses the processor of claim 26, wherein the SIB is received prior to decoding a PDCCH candidate (see LUI, Par. 114, 126, 138, “SIB1, which is a cell-specific system information block (SystemInformationBlock, SIB), may contain information relevant when evaluating if a UE is allowed to access a cell and define the scheduling of other system information”, “A base station may transmit, to a UE, information to specify one or more CORESET configuration and/or search space configuration. The information may be included in MIB and/or SIBs broadcasted by the base station”, note that the SIB is used by the base station to transmit system information and inform the UE of CORESET configuration prior to sending the PDCCH candidate, thus, the SIB would be transmitted to the UE first prior to transmitting PDCCH candidate and thus prior to decoding the PDCCH candidate).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 2023/0156700) in view of Khoshnevisan (US 2022/0225368) and further in view of Kim (US 2022/0217694).
Referring to claim 23, the combination of LIU/Khoshnevisan discloses the processor of claim 21. The above combination is not relied on for limitation: wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted in multiple spans in a same slot.
In an analogous art, Kim discloses a PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted in multiple spans in a same slot (Par. 378, “(PDCCH (carrying the same DCI) is repeatedly transmitted in different symbols in the same slot)”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Kim, by transmitting the same DCI multiple times in the same time slot, for the purpose of using communication resources more efficiently. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 2023/0156700) in view of Khoshnevisan (US 2022/0225368) and further in view of Papasakllariou (US 20180167932).
Referring to claim 24, the combination of LIU/Khoshnevisan discloses the processor of claim 21.
The above combination is not relied on for limitation: “wherein the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted in multiple slots”.
In an analogous art, Papasakellariou discloses the repetitions for the PDCCH candidates comprise a same DCI transmitted in multiple slots (Par. 258, “a same DL DCI format schedules transmissions of multiple TBs in multiple slots”, note a same DCI is scheduled for transmission using multiple transport blocks (TBs) in multiple slots which read on the claim language).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Papasakellariou in the format claimed, for the purpose of communicating changes in the channel scheduling with repetitive DCIs. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 2023/0156700) in view of Khoshnevisan (US 2022/0225368) and further in view of XU (US 2020/0028651).
Referring to claim 25, the combination of LIU/Khoshnevisan discloses the processor of claim 21.
The above combination is not relied on for claim language: wherein the PDCCH configuration information comprises one of a number of repetitions, a time or frequency allocation for the PDCCH candidates, or an identification of a first and last repetition of the PDCCH candidates.
In an analogous art, XU discloses wherein the PDCCH configuration information comprises one of a number of repetitions, a time or frequency allocation for the PDCCH candidates, or an identification of a first and last repetition of the PDCCH candidates (Par. 40, “Base station 120 may also signal the PDCCH configuration, including frequency allocation and time duration of the CORESETs and PDCCH candidates, to user devices”, note that based on alternative claim format only one of the alternatives is selected for rejection, in this case, the alternative “time or frequency allocation for PDCCH candidate” is disclosed by XU’s frequency allocation and time duration of PDCCH candidates).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of XU in the format claimed, for the purpose of identifying frequency and time grids for the PDCCH candidates. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner proposes the following amendments to independent claim 21 in order to place claim 21 in condition for allowance and thereby expedite prosecution:
Amending claim 21 by incorporating the phrase “encoding the PDCCH candidates comprises: encoding a first PDCCH candidate using a first repetition order set to a first value; and determining a second repetition order, wherein the second repetition order is defined in the DCI of the first PDCCH candidate” into claim 21 would make claim 21 allowable.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the feature “encoding the PDCCH candidates comprises: encoding a first PDCCH candidate using a first repetition order set to a first value; and determining a second repetition order, wherein the second repetition order is defined in the DCI of the first PDCCH candidate”. along with the limitations of the claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED A CASCA whose telephone number is (571)272-7918. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/FRED A CASCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644