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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicants arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over the combination of Lenovo (Of Record) in view of Hosseini (Of Record), the examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically the applicant argues on Pg. 10 of the remarks that Lenovo does not disclose “split…a BD/CCE Budget between the first DCI and the second DCI as claimed”. However the examiner respectfully disagrees as the combined teachings of Lenovo in view of Hosseini disclose splitting a BC/CCE budget between the first DCI and the second DCI which will be explained below.
For example the applicant states on (Pg. 10 of the remarks) that Lenovo treats the BD/CCE resources as subject to a global constraint across scheduled cells and not as resources allocated between different DCI formats. The applicant further states that for example, Lenovo explains that “the number of BD/CCE monitored…is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells on Pg. 46 of Lenovo.
However the examiner recited Pg. 46 of Lenovo (i.e., “CATT”) for disclosing that i.e., “if a UE is configured with N scheduled cells with PDCCH candidates monitored on a scheduling cell, the number of BD/CCE monitored on scheduling cell (emphasis added) is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X for a set of cells on scheduling cell”. (emphasis added). Therefore Pg. 46 of Lenovo i.e., “CATT” discloses that the scheduling cell in which the number of BC/CCE is monitored, is associated with a budget such as the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. Therefore the examiner relies on Lenovo, Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” for teaching or showing that the scheduling cell in which the number of BC/CCE is monitored, is associated with a budget which may be the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. Such BD/CCE budget on the scheduling cell is shown to be shared between a first DCI format (i.e., DCI format 0_X/1_X) and second DCI format (i.e., “legacy DCI format”) on Pg. 67 (i.e., “Qualcomm”) of Lenovo when monitoring both formats on the same CC (i.e., CC-1) or scheduling cell.
For example, referring to Lenovo, Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm”, discloses the scheduling cell i.e., CC-1 in which the BD/CCE of both the DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., claimed “first format”) and legacy DCI format (i.e., claimed “second format”) are counted, is associated with a BD/CCE budget (i.e., “36”) which is shared between the BD/CCE counting of the first DCI format and the second DCI format. (see Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., when DCI format 0_X/1_X is used for multi-cell scheduling CC2…the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC1, which is max 36. When DCI format 0_1/1_1 (i.e., “second DCI format”) is used for single-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC2, which is max 36…Then, the UE has to process 36 BDs counted on CC-1 and 36 BDS counted on CC2 in a slot to see if there is a grant from data on CC-2. This requires UE to process double the number of BDs/CCEs for DCI for a scheduled CC…Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format (i.e., “second DCI format”) only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1).
Therefore the examiner does not just rely only on the global constraint across the scheduled cells as argued by the applicant as disclosed in Pg. 46 of Lenovo, but rather relies on the scheduling cell which is associated with a BD/CCE budget (i.e., which may be capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cell as disclosed on Pg. 46, Lenovo) to be shared between the DCI format DCI 0_X/1_X and legacy DCI format when counting their respective BD/CCE (Lenovo, Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm”). While not explicitly disclosed in Lenovo, such sharing of the BD/CCE budget between the DCI formats may be possible to include a split or division of the BD/CCE budget between the DCI formats and such splitting feature based on a splitting factor of the BD/CCE budget between the DCI formats would be rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Hossein who discloses splitting according to a splitting factor, the BD/CCE budget between a first DCI format and second DCI format which is determined by the base station, (Hossein, see Fig. 7 & Para’s [0062], [0063] i.e., splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or CCEs) across various types of DCI, & [0064-0067]).
For the reasons explained, the combined teachings of Lenovo in view of Hosseini disclose a division or splitting of the BD/CCE resources between “performing BD/CCE carrying a first DCI in a first DCI format” and “performing BD/CCE carrying a second DCI in a second DCI format” or otherwise splitting the BD/CCE budget between separate blind decoding operations corresponding to the first DCI format and the second DCI format as argued by the applicant, for the reasons explained with respect to (Lenovo, Pg.’s 46 i.e., “CATT” section & 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” section and Hosseini, Para’s [0062-0067]).
In regards to the applicants arguments with respect to (Pg. 11 of the remarks), the applicant argues that Lenovo does not determine separate numbers of CCEs based on a splitting factor. However the applicant is arguing the reference of Lenovo individually for not disclosing determine separate numbers of CCEs based on a splitting factor. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As previously explained, Lenovo discloses on Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm”, counting the BD/CCE of the first DCI format and second DCI format with respect to a BD/CCE budget of the scheduling cell (i.e., CC-1) (Lenovo, Pg. 67). Such BD/CCE counting of the DCI formats includes a respective number of CCEs counted for each DCI format with respect to the BD/CCE budget of the scheduling cell (i.e., CC-1). As previously explained, while not explicitly disclosed in Lenovo, such sharing of the BD/CCE budget between the BD/CCE counting of the DCI formats may be possible to include a split or division of the BD/CCE budget between the DCI formats and such splitting feature of the BD/CCE budget between the DCI formats would be rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Hossein who discloses splitting according to a splitting factor, the BD/CCE budget between a first DCI format and second DCI format which is determined by the base station, (Hossein, see Fig. 7 & Para’s [0062] i.e., For example, out of 12 BDs per span, the number of BDs for a first type of DCI may not exceed 6, and the number of BDs for a second type of DCI may not exceed the remaining 6, [0063] i.e., splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or CCEs) across various types of DCI, & [0064-0067] i.e., operation 700 for allocating a number of BDs and/or CCEs among various types of DCI…In certain aspects, the number of BDs may include a first number of BDs associated with the first type of DCI and a second number of BDs associated with the second type of DCI). Therefore the combined teachings of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses determining separate numbers of CCEs based on a splitting factor.
In regards to the applicants arguments on Pg. 11 of the remarks, that instead Lenovo describes that BD/CCE processing is constrained globally across cells, for the same reasons explained above the examiner does not just rely only on the global constraint across the scheduled cells, but rather relies on the scheduling cell which is associated with a BD/CCE budget to be shared between the DCI format DCI 0_X/1_X and legacy DCI format when counting their respective BD/CCE, (Lenovo, i.e., Pg. 67, “Qualcomm”). The counting of BD/CCE of each of the DCI formats as disclosed in Pg. 67 of Lenovo are associated with distinct CCE counts between performing BD/CCE carrying a first DCI in a first DCI format and performing BD/CCE carrying a second DCI in a second DCI format with respect to the BD/CCE budget (i.e., 36) on the scheduling cell (i.e., CC-1) (Lenovo, i.e., Pg. 67, “Qualcomm”) and determining the number of CCEs for each of the first and second DCI format according to the budget shared between the DCI formats in Lenovo would be obvious to be determined based on a splitting factor and the BD/CCE budget as disclosed in the teachings of Hosseini for satisfying the blind decoding/CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE (see Para’s [0062-0067])). Therefore the combined teachings of Lenovo in view of Hosseini disclose the first number of CCEs corresponding to the first DCI format and the second number of CCEs corresponding to the second DCI format are determined based on a splitting factor and the BD/CCE budget.
In regards to the applicants arguments on Pg.’s 11-12 of the remarks, that Lenovo does not disclose the claimed monitoring based on separate per-format limits, the examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically the applicant argues that Lenovo does not disclose the claim features related to monitoring the first group of CCE candidates and second group of CCE candidates for the first DCI and second DCI to perform blind decoding until the first number and second number of CCEs carrying the first DCI and the second DCI have been blind decoded. However the combined teachings of Lenovo in view of Hosseini disclose the claimed feature.
For example Lenovo at least discloses monitoring a first group and second group of CCE candidates corresponding to the first DCI and second DCI until a number of CCE carrying the first DCI and second DCI have been blind decoded according to the BD/CCE monitoring/counting operation performed for each of the first DCI format (i.e., DCI format 0_X/1_X) and the second legacy DCI format (Lenovo i.e., Pg. 67 “Qualcomm” i.e., BD/CCE counting/monitoring of DCI format 0_X/1_X and legacy DCI format on the same CC in the CC-set). Such monitoring and counting of the BD/CCE performed for each of the formats may be interpreted or refer to the group of CCE candidates as Lenovo discloses CCE candidates are counted/monitored for each of the DCI formats, (Lenovo, see Pg. 29 i.e., for cross-carrier scheduling, the UE monitors the PDCCH candidates on the scheduling cell, Pg. 30 i.e., proposal 2-9 i.e., monitoring PDCCH candidates for a set of cells which can be co-scheduled by a DCI format 0_X/1_X, Pg. 42, OPPO i.e., the number of PDCCH candidate for DCI format 0_X/1_X and legacy DCI Pg. 46,CATT i.e., PDCCH candidates monitored & Pg. 52, CATT i.e., PDCCH candidates used to monitor DCI format for a single cell and DCI format for a set of cells). In regards to the determined first number of CCEs and second number of CCEs for each of the DCI formats, a determined number of CCEs for different types of DCI formats (i.e., separate per-limit formats) is disclose in the teachings of Hossein according to a splitting factor, (Hossein, see Para’s [0062] i.e., For example, out of 12 BDs per span, the number of BDs for a first type of DCI may not exceed 6, and the number of BDs for a second type of DCI may not exceed the remaining 6, [0063] i.e., splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or CCEs) across various types of DCI, & [0064-0067] i.e., operation 700 for allocating a number of BDs and/or CCEs among various types of DCI…In certain aspects, the number of BDs may include a first number of BDs associated with the first type of DCI and a second number of BDs associated with the second type of DCI). Therefore the combined teachings of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses determining separate numbers of CCEs based on a splitting factor for each of the first DCI format and the second DCI format and the combination of Lenovo in view of in view of Hosseini discloses the claim feature in claim 1 with respect to monitoring the first group of CCE candidates and second group of CCE candidates for the first DCI and second DCI to perform blind decoding until the first number and second number of CCEs carrying the first DCI and the second DCI have been blind decoded.
In regards to the applicants argument further on (Pg. 12 of the remarks) that Lenovo does not disclose (i) separate per-format decoding limits corresponding to performing BD/CCE carrying a first DCI in a first DCI format and a second DCI in a second DCI format, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons explained above as the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini disclose performing BD/CCE counting for the first DCI format and second DCI format with separate per-format decoding limits. For example Hosseini alone discloses the claim feature of performing BD/CCE counting for the first DCI format and second DCI format with separate per-format decoding limits (Hossein, see Para’s [0062] i.e., For example, out of 12 BDs per span, the number of BDs for a first type of DCI may not exceed 6, and the number of BDs for a second type of DCI may not exceed the remaining 6, [0063] i.e., splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or CCEs) across various types of DCI, & [0064-0067]) which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform for the BD/CCE counting performed for the first DCI format and second DCI format as disclosed in Lenovo.
In regards to the applicants arguments that Lenovo does not disclose (ii) monitoring distinct groups of CCE candidates tied to such separately determined limits, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the claim feature for the same reasons explained above. As previously explained above, such monitoring and counting of the BD/CCE performed for each of the DCI formats as disclosed in Lenovo (i.e., Pg. 67, “Qualcomm”) may be interpreted or refer to the group of CCE candidates corresponding to the first DCI format and the second DCI format as Lenovo discloses CCE candidates are counted/monitored for each of the DCI formats for the same reasons explained above.
In regards to the applicants arguments that Lenovo does not disclose (iii) terminating blind decoding for one DCI format upon reaching a format-specific threshold while continuing blind decoding for another, the language of “terminating blind decoding for one DCI format upon reaching a format-specific threshold while continuing blind decoding for another” is not specifically claimed as a claim feature in claim 1 as the terms “terminating” and while “continuing blind decoding” are not claimed in claim 1. Rather claim 1, which claims that the monitoring of the first group and second group of CCE candidates corresponding to the first DCI format and the second DCI format are monitored until the their respective number of CCEs have been blind decoded, is disclosed with respect to the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini for the reasons explained above.
In regards to the applicants arguments on (Pg. 12 of the remarks) regarding the claimed splitting and related limitations are not intended use. More specifically the applicant argues the office action which alleges the claim feature in claim 1 of “generate a report of a UE capability to support splitting a blind decoding (BD) control channel element (CCE) (BD/CCE) budget between performing BD/CCE carrying a first downlink control information (DCI) in a first DCI format, and performing BD/CCE carrying a second DCI in a second DCI format” was intended use. While the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim feature which recites “generate a report of a UE capability to support splitting a blind decoding (BD) control channel element (BD/CCE) budget between performing BD/CCE carrying a first downlink control information (DCI) in a first DCI format, and performing BD/CCE carrying a second DCI in a second DCI format”, the feature of “to support splitting a BD/CCE budget” in the claim feature such as “generate a report of a UE capability to support splitting a blind decoding (BD) control channel element (CCE) (BD/CCE) budget” at least represents a statement of intended use in the generate claim feature. However even is assuming the claim feature is not a statement of intended use, the claim feature was still given patentable weight in the office action based on the combined teachings of Lenovo in view of Hosseini. For example, as previously explained above Lenovo discloses performing BD/CCE for the first DCI format and the second DCI format according to the BD/CCE budget of a scheduling cell which is shared between the BD/CCE counting of the first DCI format and the second DCI format (Lenovo, Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm”). As previously explained above, while not explicitly disclosed in Lenovo, such sharing of the BD/CCE budget between the DCI formats may be possible to include a split or division of the BD/CCE budget between the DCI formats and such splitting feature based on a splitting factor of the BD/CCE budget between the DCI formats would be rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Hossein who discloses splitting according to a splitting factor, the BD/CCE budget between a first DCI format and second DCI format which is determined by the base station, (Hossein, see Fig. 7 & Para’s [0062], [0063] i.e., splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or CCEs) across various types of DCI, & [0064-0067]). For the reasons explained the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the claim feature of “splitting a BD/CCE budget between performing BD/CCE carrying a first DCI in a first DCI format, and performing BD/CCE carrying a second DCI in a second DCI format” and has been given patentable weight.
In regards to the applicants argument regarding the teachings of Hosseini on (Pg. 13 of the remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, the applicant argues the claim feature of splitting a blind decoding (BD) control channel element (CCE) (BD/CCE) budget between…a first DCI…and…a second DCI” is not disclosed in Hosseini. However the examiner respectfully disagree as Hosseini discloses splitting a blind decoding (BD) control channel element (CCE) (BD/CCE) budget between a first DCI and a second DCI, (Hossein, see Fig. 7 & Para’s [0062] i.e., For example, out of 12 BDs per span, the number of BDs for a first type of DCI may not exceed 6, and the number of BDs for a second type of DCI may not exceed the remaining 6, [0063] i.e., splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or CCEs) across various types of DCI, & [0064-0067] i.e., operation 700 for allocating a number of BDs and/or CCEs among various types of DCI…In certain aspects, the number of BDs may include a first number of BDs associated with the first type of DCI and a second number of BDs associated with the second type of DCI). The applicant states that Hosseini does not disclose splitting a BD/CCE budget between performing BD/CCE carrying a first DCI in a first DCI format and performing BD/CCE carrying a second DCI in a second DCI format. However the examiner respectfully disagrees as Para [0063] of Hosseini discloses i.e., i.e., splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or CCEs) across various types of DCI. Hosseini discloses splitting a BD/CCE budget between performing BD/CCE carrying a first DCI in a first DCI format and performing BD/CCE carrying a second DCI in a second DCI format which is performed according to a splitting factor and the BD/CCE budget (see Para’s [0060-0062] i.e., For example, out of 12 BDs per span, the number of BDs for a first type of DCI may not exceed 6, and the number of BDs for a second type of DCI may not exceed the remaining 6 (i.e., 50% of the BDs (i.e., “splitting factor”) allocated for the first DCI and the second DCI is determined by the base station 110, [0063] i.e., splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or CCEs) across various types of DCI, [0064-0065] i.e., operation 700 for allocating a number of BDs and/or CCEs among various types of DCI…In certain aspects, the number of BDs may include a first number of BDs associated with the first type of DCI and a second number of BDs associated with the second type of DCI & [0066-0067] i.e., At 710, the UE 120 may monitor PDCCH candidates from the BS 110 in accordance with the allocated resource budget at 708). For the reasons explained, Hosseini does disclose allocating portions of a BD/CCE budget to different DCI formats or splitting such as budget between separate blind decoding operations corresponding to different DCI formats (Hosseini, see Para’s [0060-0067]).
For the reasons explained the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini are maintained. The dependent claims remain rejected over the prior art (Of Record) based on their dependence to independent claims 1, 8, and 16. In regards to the applicants arguments regarding new claims 21-23, a new ground(s) of rejection has been set forth for new claims 21-23.
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.
Claims 21-22 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 21, recites the claim limitation “wherein the report further includes a parameter identifying a set of cells associated with the first DCI format, the parameter indicating a carrier indicator corresponding to the set of cells for which the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions, and wherein the parameter is included in a radio resource control (RRC) configuration”. However the claimed subject matter of the report including the parameter indicating a carrier indicator 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.
For example the specification only describes the “parameter” with respect to a “carrier indicator” in Para [0060] and the table of Para [0060] of the applicants specification US (2024/0276518). The description in Para [0060] refers to RRC configuration in which the parameter is received by the UE (see applicant specification, Para [0060] i.e., RRC configuration for multi-cell scheduling of UE 101…the presence of this parameter can indicate to UE 101 that multi-cell scheduling is configured for this cell…and the table describes a i.e., carrierindicatorsize). However the Para [0060] does not describe such RRC configuration or parameter indicating a carrier indicator in the report transmitted by the UE to the base station. The examiner has not been able to locate in the applicants specification the claimed subject matter in claim 21 of “wherein the report further includes a parameter identifying a set of cells associated with the first DCI format, the parameter indicating a carrier indicator corresponding to the set of cells for which the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions, and wherein the parameter is included in a radio resource control (RRC) configuration”. If the subject matter of claim 21 is described in the specification, the examiner asks the applicant to provide support for the subject matter in the applicants specification. For purposes of examination the examiner interprets the claim feature to refer to RRC signaling sent to the UE which includes the parameter indicating a carrier indicator.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites the claim limitation of “wherein the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions for two or more cells of the plurality of cells, and wherein the UE is not configured to process the first DCI when the first DCI schedules only a single cell”. However the applicants specification does not describe the claimed subject matter of the first DCI which is used for multi-cell scheduling acts as a first DCI which schedules only a single cell. In light of the applicants specification in Para [0023] of US (2024/0276518), which describes a DCI may be used to schedule data transmissions for a UE in a single cell. Para [0023] further discloses a different kind of DCI, such as multi-cell scheduling for PDSCH/PUSCH, can use a single DCI to schedule data transmissions for a UE in multiple cells, which can be more efficient. Para’s [0012] and [0041] of the applicants specification disclose the first DCI 131 may be used to schedule only cell 106 without scheduling any additional cell in which the UE receives the first DCI 131 (i.e., Para [0041]). However Para’s [0012], [0023], and [0041] nor the applicants specification, describe the claimed subject matter of wherein the UE is not configured to process the first DCI (i.e., “muti-cell scheduling DCI”) when the first DCI schedules only a single cell as claimed in claim 22. If the subject matter of claim 22 is described in the specification, the examiner asks the applicant to provide support for the subject matter in the applicants specification.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Lenovo) “Feature lead summary #4 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft; R1-2210662 in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177).
Regarding Claim 1, Lenovo discloses a user equipment (UE), (see Pg. 46, “CATT” i.e., UE) , comprising: a transceiver (see Pg. 8 i.e., PUSCH scheduled for UE & Pg. 46, “CATT” i.e., UE receiving PDCCH suggests UE transceiver for wireless communication) configured to enable wireless communication in a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system having a plurality of cells; (see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured on one or more cells of the set of cells)
and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and configured to: generate a report of a UE capability to support splitting a blind decoding (BD) control channel element (CCE) (BD/CCE) budget between performing BD/CCE carrying a first downlink control information (DCI) in a first DCI format, and performing BD/CCE carrying a second DCI in a second DCI format, (see Pg. 46 i.e., “Catt” i.e., We support the proposal…the search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X configured on more than one cells will not increase PDCCH monitoring capability of UE (i.e., “report”)…In the current spec, the UE is configured with N scheduled cells with PDCCH candidates monitored on a scheduling cell, the number of BD/CCE monitored on scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a set of cells on scheduling cell. Thus, the number of PDCCH candidates monitored on scheduling cells should be up to the total number of BD across the set of cells, i.e. 144. Note that the number of PDCCH candidate configured on each scheduled cell meet the BD limit of per cell & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., When DCI format 0_1/1_1 (i.e., “second DCI format”) is used for single-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC2, which is max 36…Then, the UE has to process 36 BDs counted on CC-1 and 36 BDS counted on CC2 in a slot to see if there is a grant from data on CC-2. This requires UE to process double the number of BDs/CCEs for DCI for a scheduled CC…Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format (i.e., “second DCI format”) only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1)
wherein the first DCI format indicates the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions for a set of multiple cells of the plurality of cells of the CA wireless system by the first DCI; (see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) can be configured one or more cells of the set of cells)
transmit the report to a base station; (see Pg. 22 i.e., “MTK i.e., optional UE capability & Pg. 34 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., 36 BDs are available for a scheduled CC which is based on an optional UE capability suggests the network receives the optional UE capability (i.e., “capability report”), see Pg. 46 i.e., “Catt” i.e., capability of the UE, & Pg. 57,“Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4)
configure the UE to perform blind decoding of a first number of CCEs carrying the first DCI, and blind decoding of a second number of CCEs carrying the second DCI, (see Pg. 46 i.e., “Catt” i.e., For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X for a set of cells on scheduling cell, Pg. 49 i.e., proposal 2-6 & NTT Docomo i.e., how to avoid collisions of n_CI/CCE indices between multi-cell scheduling by DCI format 0_X/1_X and cross-carrier scheduling by legacy DCI & Pg. 67 row Qualcomm i.e., When DCI format 0_1/1_1 (i.e., “second DCI format”) is used for single-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC2, which is max 36…Then, the UE has to process 36 BDs counted on CC-1 and 36 BDS counted on CC2 in a slot to see if there is a grant from data on CC-2. This requires UE to process double the number of BDs/CCEs for DCI for a scheduled CC…Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format (i.e., “second DCI format”) only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1)
wherein the first number of CCEs and the second number of CCEs are determined based on a splitting and the BD/CCE budget; (see Pg. 46 i.e., “Catt” i.e., We support the proposal…the search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X configured on more than one cells will not increase PDCCH monitoring capability of UE (i.e., “report”)…In the current spec, the UE is configured with N scheduled cells with PDCCH candidates monitored on a scheduling cell, the number of BD/CCE monitored on scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a set of cells on scheduling cell. Thus, the number of PDCCH candidates monitored on scheduling cells should be up to the total number of BD across the set of cells, i.e. 144. Note that the number of PDCCH candidate configured on each scheduled cell meet the BD limit of per cell & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., When DCI format 0_1/1_1 (i.e., “second DCI format”) is used for single-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC2, which is max 36…Then, the UE has to process 36 BDs counted on CC-1 and 36 BDS counted on CC2 (i.e., “splitting”) in a slot to see if there is a grant from data on CC-2. This requires UE to process double the number of BDs/CCEs for DCI for a scheduled CC…Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format (i.e., “second DCI format”) only for one CC in the CC-set (i.e., one CC in the CC-set refers to the scheduling cell which is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells as disclosed in Pg. 46 i.e., “Catt”) and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1 (i.e., BD/CCE counted for DCI 0_X/1_X and legacy DCI format are determined based on BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells as disclosed in Pg. 46 i.e., “Catt”))
monitor a first group of CCE candidates corresponding to the first DCI until the first number of CCEs carrying the first DCI have been blind decoded, (see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” i.e., In the current spec, the UE is configured with N scheduled cells with PDCCH candidates monitored on a scheduling cell, the number of BD/CCE monitored on scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a set of cells on scheduling cell & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” when DCI format 0_X/1_X is used for multi-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC1, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…i.e., Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1)
and monitor a second group of CCE candidates corresponding to the second DCI until the second number of CCEs carrying the second DCI have been blind decoded, (see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., When DCI format 0_1/1_1 is used for single-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC2, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format (i.e., “second DCI”) only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1).
While Lenovo suggests splitting the number of BD/CCEs carrying the first DCI and the number of BD/CCEs carrying the second DCI based on the BD/CCE budget, Lenovo does not explicitly disclose the splitting is determined based on a splitting factor by the base station and the claim features of a transceiver configured to enable wireless communication in a carrier aggregation wireless system having a plurality of cells; and the processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177).
Hosseini discloses splitting the number of BD/CCEs carrying a first DCI format and a number of BD/CCEs carrying a second DCI format based on a splitting factor determined by the base station and a BD/CCE budget (In light of the applicants specification in Para [0053] i.e., the splitting factor refers to a determined percentage of the total BD/CCEs being allocated to the first DCI format and the second DCI format, (Hosseini, see Fig. 7 & Para’s [0062] i.e., For example, out of 12 BDs per span, the number of BDs for a first type of DCI may not exceed 6, and the number of BDs for a second type of DCI may not exceed the remaining 6 (i.e., 50% of the BDs (i.e., “splitting factor”) allocated for the first DCI and the second DCI is determined by the base station 110), [0063] i.e., a UE has a capability/resource budget for performing a certain number of BDs and processing a certain number of CCEs, respectively. Aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques for splitting this resource budget (e.g., number of BDs or number of CCEs) across various types of DCI), & [0064-0067] i.e., At 706, the BS 110 may transmit, to the UE 120, an indication of the allocated resource budget among the first type of DCI and second type of DCI…In certain aspects, the indication may provide a first budget associated with the first type of DCI and/or a second resource budget associated with the type of DCI. In certain aspects, the number of BDs may include a first number of BDs associated with the first type of DCI and a second number of BDs associated with the second type of DCI )
a transceiver (see Fig. 10 i.e., transceiver 1008) configured to enable wireless communication in a carrier aggregation wireless system having a plurality of cells, (see Fig. 10 & Para [0064] i.e., At 702, a UE 120 may transit to a BS 110, capability information indicating the PDCCH blind decoding/CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE, such as a maximum number of BDs and/or a maximum number of CCEs that the UE can monitor per slot or span per cell group, in carrier aggregation (e.g., per cell), or in total)
and the processor (see Fig. 10 i.e., processor 1004) communicatively coupled to the transceiver (see Fig. 10 i.e., transceiver 1008), (see Fig. 10 & Para’s [0120-0121])
(Hosseini suggests that the base station performs splitting the number of BD/CCEs carrying a first DCI format and a number of BD/CCEs carrying a second DCI format based on a BD/CCE budget for satisfying the blind decoding/CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE (see Para’s [0062-0066])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the splitting of the number of BD/CCEs carrying the first DCI and the number of BD/CCEs carrying the second DCI based on the BD/CCE budget as disclosed in Lenovo to be determined by splitting the number of BD/CCEs carrying a first DCI format and a number of BD/CCEs carrying a second DCI format based on a BD/CCE budget according to a splitting factor determined by the base station as disclosed in Hosseini, because the motivation lies in Hosseini that the base station performs splitting the number of BD/CCEs carrying a first DCI format and a number of BD/CCEs carrying a second DCI format based on a BD/CCE budget for satisfying the blind decoding/CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein a sum of the first number of CCEs and the second number of CCEs is equal to the BD/CCE budget (Lenovo, see Pg. 67 i.e., opt. 1 BD/CCE counted on the same CC in the CC-set for the legacy and 0_X/1_X DCI’s (i.e., “sum”) & Pg. 46, “CATT” i.e., the number of BC/CCE monitored on the scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the sum of the monitored BD/CCEs for each DCI to be configured to be equal or capped to the BD/CCE budget on the scheduling cell (i.e., same CC)) and less than or equal to a predetermined CCE limit, (Lenovo, see Pg. 46 i.e., Note that the number of PDCCH candidates configured on each scheduled cell meet the BD limit of per cell & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., opt 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI formats only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BC/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set)
Regarding Claim 8, Lenovo discloses a method for a user equipment (UE) (see Pg. 46, “CATT” i.e., UE), comprising: generating a report to indicate whether the UE has a capability to support a first downlink control information (DCI) in a first DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells of a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system (see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured on one or more cells of the set of cells) and a second DCI in a second DCI format for the cell, (see Pg. 7, “Catt” i.e., proposal 4 if the UE has the capability of multi-cell scheduling, all legacy DCI format can be monitored with DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”), Pg. 18 i.e., “Vivo2”, Pg. 22 i.e., MTK i.e., an additional optional UE capability (support DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”) and legacy cross carrier scheduling (i.e., uses second legacy DCI format) at the same time, Pg. 34 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., 36 BDs are available for a scheduled CC which is based on an optional UE capability suggests the network receives the optional UE capability (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 44 i.e., proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., It is up to UE capability that gNB configures DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”), Pg. 47 i.e., “Apple i.e., UE capability whether DCI 0_X/1_X is configured, Pg. 57 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4 i.e., a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X and to monitor legacy DCI formats…Additional CIF/nCI values for monitoring legacy DCI formats for the scheduled cells in the set can be supported subject to optional UE capability signaling (i.e., “capability report”), & Pg. 81 i.e., “Qualcomm” opt.3: where the number of cells that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the DCI 0_X/1_X and that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the legacy DCI formats are up to the UE capability)
wherein the first DCI format indicates that the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions for a set of multiple cells of the wireless system, (see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured one or more cells of the set of cells)
and the second DCI includes a cross carrier scheduling (CCS) DCI for a single cell; see Pg. 49 i.e., “NTT Docomo” i.e., cross-carrier scheduling by legacy DCI, Pg. 52 i.e., “CATT” i.e., legacy cross-carrier scheduling with DCI format for a single cell & Pg. 65 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., legacy cross-carrier scheduling using legacy DCI formats & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., legacy DCI format)
transmitting the report to a base station; (see Pg. 22 i.e., “MTK i.e., optional UE capability & Pg. 34 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., 36 BDs are available for a scheduled CC which is based on an optional UE capability suggests the network receives the optional UE capability (i.e., “capability report”), see Pg. 46 i.e., “Catt” i.e., capability of the UE, & Pg. 57,“Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4)
configuring the UE to support the first DCI in the first DCI format and the second DCI in the second DCI format when the UE has the capability to support both the first DCI and the second DCI; (see Pg. 7, “Catt” i.e., proposal 4 if the UE has the capability of multi-cell scheduling, all legacy DCI format can be monitored with DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”), Pg. 18 i.e., “Vivo2”, Pg. 22 i.e., MTK i.e., an additional optional UE capability (support DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”) and legacy cross carrier scheduling (i.e., uses second legacy DCI format) at the same time, Pg. 44 i.e., proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., It is up to UE capability that gNB configures DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”), Pg. 57 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4 i.e., a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X and to monitor legacy DCI formats…Additional CIF/nCI values for monitoring legacy DCI formats for the scheduled cells in the set can be supported subject to optional UE capability signaling (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm”, & Pg. 81 i.e., “Qualcomm” opt.3: where the number of cells that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the DCI 0_X/1_X and that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the legacy DCI formats are up to the UE capability)
and monitoring a first group of control channel element (CCE) candidates corresponding to the first DCI to perform blind decoding of a first number of CCEs carrying the first DCI, (see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” i.e., In the current spec, the UE is configured with N scheduled cells with PDCCH candidates monitored on a scheduling cell, the number of BD/CCE monitored on scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a set of cells on scheduling cell & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” when DCI format 0_X/1_X is used for multi-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC1, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…i.e., Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1)
and monitoring a second group of CCE candidates corresponding to the second DCI to perform blind decoding of a second number of CCEs carrying the second DCI, (see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., When DCI format 0_1/1_1 is used for single-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC2, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format (i.e., “second DCI”) only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1).
While Lenovo discloses supporting a first downlink control information (DCI) in a first DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells suggesting a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system (see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured one or more cells of the set of cells), Lenovo does not explicitly disclose a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177).
Hosseini discloses a UE supporting a DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells of a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system (see Para’s [0048] & [0064-0065] i.e., A UE 120 may transmit to a BS 110, capability information indicating the PDCCH blind decoding /CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE, such as a maximum number of BDs and/or a maximum number of CCEs that the UE can monitor per slot or span per cell group, in carrier aggregation (e.g., per cell)).
(Hosseini suggests that the base station performs allocating a number of BD/CCEs carrying a first DCI format and a number of BD/CCEs carrying a second DCI format based on a BD/CCE budget for satisfying the blind decoding/CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE, (see Para’s [0062-0066])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells which is configured with a number of CCEs carrying the first DCI for blind decoding performed by the UE as disclosed in Lenovo to be of the carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system as disclosed in Hosseini who discloses a UE supporting a DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells of a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system, because the motivation lies in Hosseini that the base station performs allocating a number of BD/CCEs carrying a first DCI format and a number of BD/CCEs carrying a second DCI format based on a BD/CCE budget for satisfying the blind decoding/CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting the report to indicate an additional capability of the UE (Lenovo, see Pg. 44 i.e., proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., it is up to the UE capability (i.e., “additional capability”) and gNB configuration on how many cells and/or which cells of the set of cells the search space of the DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured on. The minimum value of the UE capability for the number of cells is 1 (i.e., “additional capability”)) to allow the cell being scheduled by the first DCI that is used to schedule only the cell without scheduling any additional cell at a same time; (In regards to the claim language of “to allow the cell being scheduled by the first DCI that is used to schedule only the cell without scheduling any additional cell at a same time”, the claim language is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim (i.e., see Outdry Techs. Corp V. Geox Pg.’s 2-3 regarding statement of intended use)), (Lenovo, see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured on one or more cells of the set of cells))
and determining the first DCI received by decoding the first number of CCEs to be a valid DCI, (Lenovo, see Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., the BD/CCE is counted on CC-1, which is max 36 for DCI format 0_X/1_X…the UE has to process 36 BDs counted on CC-1…This requires UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCI is for a scheduled CC (i.e., correct blind decoding of the CCEs suggests a valid DCI))
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the report indicates the UE has the capability to support the first DCI and the second DCI for all the cells configured for the UE including the cell, (Lenovo, see Pg. 22 i.e., MTK i.e., an additional optional UE capability (support DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”) and legacy cross carrier scheduling (i.e., uses second legacy DCI format) at the same time, Pg. 34 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., 36 BDs are available for a scheduled CC which is based on an optional UE capability suggests the network receives the optional UE capability (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3, Pg. 57 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4 i.e., a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X and to monitor legacy DCI formats…Additional CIF/nCI values for monitoring legacy DCI formats for the scheduled cells in the set can be supported subject to optional UE capability signaling (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 67 i.e., opt 1 & Pg. 81 i.e., “Qualcomm” opt.3: where the number of cells that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the DCI 0_X/1_X and that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the legacy DCI formats are up to the UE capability)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the report indicates the UE does not have the capability to support the first DCI and the second DCI (Lenovo, see Pg. 12, “MTK” i.e., not to support MC-DCI and legacy cross-carrier scheduling at the same time & Pg.’s 48-49, Moderator 2 i.e., UE capability may support only DCI format 0_X/1_X & Pg. 82 i.e., opt 1, opt 2), and the method further includes: monitoring the first group of CCE candidates corresponding to the first DCI to perform blind decoding of the first number of CCEs to receive the first DCI, (Lenovo, see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” i.e., In the current spec, the UE is configured with N scheduled cells with PDCCH candidates monitored on a scheduling cell, the number of BD/CCE monitored on scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a set of cells on scheduling cell & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” when DCI format 0_X/1_X is used for multi-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC1, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…i.e., Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1)
wherein the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions for the cell alone. (Lenovo, see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured on one or more cells of the set of cells & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., DCI format 0_X/1_X is used for multi-cell scheduling).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the configuring the UE to support the first DCI and the second DCI comprises: configuring the UE to support the first DCI and the second DCI based on a single CCS information element (IE) (Lenovo, see Pg. 57 i.e., For a given CIF/nCI value (i.e., “CSS information element”), a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X for a set of scheduled cells and to monitor legacy DCI format for up to one of the scheduled cells in the set), wherein the single CCS IE includes a parameter to indicate whether the first DCI in the first DCI format is supported for the cell, (Lenovo, see Pg. 57 i.e., For a given CIF/nCI value (i.e., nCI value may be a “parameter”), a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X for a set of scheduled cells)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the method of claim 8, wherein a sum of the first number of CCEs and the second number of CCEs is less than or equal to a predetermined CCE limit. (Lenovo, see Pg. 67 i.e., opt. 1 BD/CCE counted on the same CC in the CC-set for the legacy and 0_X/1_X DCI’s (i.e., “sum”) & Pg. 46 i.e., Note that the number of PDCCH candidates configured on each scheduled cell meet the BD limit of per cell & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., opt 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI formats only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BC/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set)
Regarding Claim 16, Lenovo a processor of a user equipment (UE) (see Pg. 46, “CATT” i.e., PDCCH monitoring capability of the UE includes UE processor, Pg. 76, “Qualcomm” i.e., UE start processing PDCCH includes UE processor), cause the UE to perform operations, the operations comprising: transmitting a report to indicate whether the UE has a capability to support a first downlink control information (DCI) in a first DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells of a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system (see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured on one or more cells of the set of cells) and a second DCI in a second DCI format for the cell, (see Pg. 7, “Catt” i.e., proposal 4 if the UE has the capability of multi-cell scheduling, all legacy DCI format can be monitored with DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”), Pg. 18 i.e., “Vivo2”, Pg. 22 i.e., MTK i.e., an additional optional UE capability (support DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”) and legacy cross carrier scheduling (i.e., uses second legacy DCI format) at the same time, Pg. 34 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., 36 BDs are available for a scheduled CC which is based on an optional UE capability suggests the network receives the optional UE capability (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 44 i.e., proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., It is up to UE capability that gNB configures DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”), Pg. 47 i.e., “Apple i.e., UE capability whether DCI 0_X/1_X is configured, Pg. 57 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4 i.e., a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X and to monitor legacy DCI formats…Additional CIF/nCI values for monitoring legacy DCI formats for the scheduled cells in the set can be supported subject to optional UE capability signaling (i.e., “capability report”), & Pg. 81 i.e., “Qualcomm” opt.3: where the number of cells that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the DCI 0_X/1_X and that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the legacy DCI formats are up to the UE capability)
wherein the first DCI format indicates the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions for a set of multiple cells of the wireless system, (see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured one or more cells of the set of cells)
and the second DCI includes a cross carrier scheduling (CCS) DCI, (see Pg. 49 i.e., “NTT Docomo” i.e., cross-carrier scheduling by legacy DCI, Pg. 52 i.e., “CATT” i.e., legacy cross-carrier scheduling with DCI format for a single cell & Pg. 65 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., legacy cross-carrier scheduling using legacy DCI formats & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., legacy DCI format)
configuring the UE to support the first DCI in the first DCI format and the second DCI in the second DCI format when the UE has the capability to support both the first DCI and the second DCI; (see Pg. 7, “Catt” i.e., proposal 4 if the UE has the capability of multi-cell scheduling, all legacy DCI format can be monitored with DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”), Pg. 18 i.e., “Vivo2”, Pg. 22 i.e., MTK i.e., an additional optional UE capability (support DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”) and legacy cross carrier scheduling (i.e., uses second legacy DCI format) at the same time, Pg. 44 i.e., proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., It is up to UE capability that gNB configures DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”), Pg. 57 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4 i.e., a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X and to monitor legacy DCI formats…Additional CIF/nCI values for monitoring legacy DCI formats for the scheduled cells in the set can be supported subject to optional UE capability signaling (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm”, & Pg. 81 i.e., “Qualcomm” opt.3: where the number of cells that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the DCI 0_X/1_X and that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the legacy DCI formats are up to the UE capability)
and monitoring a first group of control channel element (CCE) candidates corresponding to the first DCI to perform blind decoding of a first number of CCEs carrying the first DCI, (see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” i.e., In the current spec, the UE is configured with N scheduled cells with PDCCH candidates monitored on a scheduling cell, the number of BD/CCE monitored on scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a set of cells on scheduling cell & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” when DCI format 0_X/1_X is used for multi-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC1, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…i.e., Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1)
and monitoring a second group of CCE candidates corresponding to the second DCI to perform blind decoding of a second number of CCEs carrying the second DCI, (see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., When DCI format 0_1/1_1 is used for single-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC2, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format (i.e., “second DCI”) only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1).
While Lenovo discloses supporting a first downlink control information (DCI) in a first DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells suggesting a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system (see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured one or more cells of the set of cells), Lenovo does not explicitly disclose a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor of the UE perform the operations. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177).
Hosseini discloses a UE supporting a DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells of a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system (see Para’s [0048] & [0064-0065] i.e., A UE 120 may transmit to a BS 110, capability information indicating the PDCCH blind decoding /CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE, such as a maximum number of BDs and/or a maximum number of CCEs that the UE can monitor per slot or span per cell group, in carrier aggregation (e.g., per cell)).
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor of the UE perform the operations of being configured with a first DCI format and second DCI format for BD/CCE monitoring of the DCI formats (see Fig. 10 & Para’s [0064-0065], [0120-0121] i.e., computer-readable medium/memory 1010 is configured to store instructions that when executed by the processor 1004, cause the processor to perform the operations, & [0239] i.e., non-transitory computer-readable media)
(Hosseini suggests that the base station performs allocating a number of BD/CCEs carrying a first DCI format and a number of BD/CCEs carrying a second DCI format based on a BD/CCE budget for satisfying the blind decoding/CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE, (see Para’s [0062-0066])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells which is configured with a number of CCEs carrying the first DCI for blind decoding performed by the UE as disclosed in Lenovo to be of the carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system and to include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor of the UE, cause the UE to perform the operations as disclosed in Hosseini who discloses a UE supporting a DCI format for a cell of a plurality of cells of a carrier aggregation (CA) wireless system, because the motivation lies in Hosseini that the base station performs allocating a number of BD/CCEs carrying a first DCI format and a number of BD/CCEs carrying a second DCI format based on a BD/CCE budget for satisfying the blind decoding/CCE monitoring capabilities of the UE.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein a sum of the first number of CCEs and the second number of CCEs is equal to the BD/CCE budget (Lenovo, see Pg. 67 i.e., opt. 1 BD/CCE counted on the same CC in the CC-set for the legacy and 0_X/1_X DCI’s (i.e., “sum”) & Pg. 46, “CATT” i.e., the number of BC/CCE monitored on the scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the sum of the monitored BD/CCEs for each DCI to be configured to be equal or capped to the BD/CCE budget on the scheduling cell (i.e., same CC)) and less than or equal to a predetermined CCE limit, (Lenovo, see Pg. 46 i.e., Note that the number of PDCCH candidates configured on each scheduled cell meet the BD limit of per cell & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., opt 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI formats only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BC/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set)
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the report indicates the UE has the capability to support the first DCI and the second DCI for all the cells configured for the UE including the cell, (Lenovo, see Pg. 22 i.e., MTK i.e., an additional optional UE capability (support DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”) and legacy cross carrier scheduling (i.e., uses second legacy DCI format) at the same time, Pg. 34 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., 36 BDs are available for a scheduled CC which is based on an optional UE capability suggests the network receives the optional UE capability (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3, Pg. 57 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4 i.e., a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X and to monitor legacy DCI formats…Additional CIF/nCI values for monitoring legacy DCI formats for the scheduled cells in the set can be supported subject to optional UE capability signaling (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 67 i.e., opt 1 & Pg. 81 i.e., “Qualcomm” opt.3: where the number of cells that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the DCI 0_X/1_X and that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the legacy DCI formats are up to the UE capability)
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the cell is a first cell (Lenovo, see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., one or more cells of the set of cells) and the report is a first report (Lenovo, see Pg. 22 i.e., MTK i.e., an additional optional UE capability), and the transmitting the report further includes: transmitting a second report indicating whether the UE has the capability for a second cell of the plurality of cells of the CA wireless system, (Lenovo, see Pg. 21 i.e., Nokia/NSB i.e., And assuming the UE gives capability (i.e., may be a “second report”) of {1,2,3,4} for selecting the cells to configure for SC-DCI Pg. 47 i.e., It is reported as a UE capability (i.e., may be “a second report”) whether one or multiple cells (i.e., “second cell”) in the set of cells can be configured with search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X, Pg. 82 i.e., Opt. 2)
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the report indicates the UE does not have the capability to support the first DCI and the second DCI (Lenovo, see Pg. 12, “MTK” i.e., not to support MC-DCI and legacy cross-carrier scheduling at the same time & Pg.’s 48-49, Moderator 2 i.e., UE capability may support only DCI format 0_X/1_X & Pg. 82 i.e., opt 1, opt 2), and the operations further include: monitoring the first group of CCE candidates corresponding to the first DCI to perform blind decoding of the first number of CCEs to receive the first DCI, (Lenovo, see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” i.e., In the current spec, the UE is configured with N scheduled cells with PDCCH candidates monitored on a scheduling cell, the number of BD/CCE monitored on scheduling cell is capped by the total number of BD/CCE budget across N scheduled cells. For multi-cell scheduling, the UE will monitor PDCCH candidate of DCI format 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a set of cells on scheduling cell & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” when DCI format 0_X/1_X is used for multi-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC1, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…i.e., Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e., “first DCI format”) for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI format”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1)
wherein the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions for the cell alone. (Lenovo, see Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3 i.e., For a set of cells which is configured for multi-cell scheduling, search space of DCI format 0_X/1_X can be configured on one or more cells of the set of cells & Pg. 67, “Qualcomm” i.e., DCI format 0_X/1_X is used for multi-cell scheduling).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Lenovo) “Feature lead summary #4 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft; R1-2210662 in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soriaga et al. US (2020/0106592).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the UE of claim 1, but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the splitting factor is included in the UE capability reported by the UE and received by the base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Soriaga et al. US (2020/0106592).
Soriaga discloses wherein a splitting factor is included in the UE capability reported by the UE and received by the base station (see Fig. 1 & Para [0089] i.e., UE capability scaling factor…the scaling factor (i.e., “splitting factor”) may indicate, for a particular UE, the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for CA of multiple cells, relative the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for a single CC & [0093] i.e., the scaling factor may be a separately signaled UE capability)
(Soriaga suggests the scaling factor may indicate, for a particular UE, the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for CA of multiple cells, relative the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for a single CC is reported as UE capability for satisfying the UE capability such as the number of blind decoding’s the UE the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for CA of multiple cells, relative the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for a single CC, (see Para [0089])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the splitting factor such as the number of BDs determined for the first DCI supporting multi-cell (i.e.,” multiple CCs”) scheduling and the number of BDs determined for the second DCI used for a single cell (i.e., “single CC”) as disclosed in Lenovo in view of Hosseini to be signaled in the UE capability reported by the UE based on the teachings of Soriaga who discloses wherein a scaling factor (i.e., “splitting factor”) is included in the UE capability reported by the UE and received by the base station, because the motivation lies in Soriaga that the scaling factor may indicate, for a particular UE, the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for CA of multiple cells, relative the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for a single CC is reported as UE capability for satisfying the UE capability such as the number of blind decoding’s the UE is able to perform for CA of multiple cells, relative the number of BDs the UE is able to perform for a single CC.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Lenovo) “Feature lead summary #4 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft; R1-2210662 in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cirik et al. US (2021/0234640).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first group of CCE candidates are allocated to a Search Space Set (SSS) associated with the first DCI format (see Pg. 24 i.e., section 3.3 Search space configuration i.e., search space of the DCI format 0_X/1_X, Pg. 29 i.e., proposal 2-8rev2, & Pg. 31 i.e., Qualcomm), and the second group of CCE candidates are allocated to a SSS associated with the second DCI format. (see Pg. 28 i.e. Section 3.3.1 i.e.., legacy cross carrier scheduling search space set & Pg. 46 i.e., search space set for legacy single-cell DCI formats), but does not disclose the claim feature of the search space set (SSS) indices {1,2,3} associated with the first DCI format and the SSS indices {4, 5, 6} associated with the second DCI format. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Cirik et al. US (2021/0234640).
Cirik discloses space set (SSS) indices may be configured and associated with a first DCI and the SSS indices may be configured and associated with a second DCI (see Para [0263] i.e., search space indices for the one or more search space sets…a first search space set of the one or more search space sets may be identified by a first search space index of the search space indices… a second search space set of the one or more search space sets may be identified by a second search space index of the search space indices, & [0368] i.e., respective search space set indices of the respective search space sets that the plurality of DCIs is received (i.e., SSS indices {1,2,3} may be configured for the first DCI and SSS indices {4, 5, 6} may be configured for the second DCI) & [0369])
(Cirik suggests configuration parameters indicating the search space set indices for the one or more search space sets may be provided via signaling in order for the UE to determine the search space sets for monitoring PDCCH candidates for receiving the DCI (see Para’s [0259-0266])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first group of CCE candidates are allocated to a Search Space Set (SSS) associated with the first DCI format and the second group of CCE candidates allocated to a SSS associated with the second DCI format as disclosed in Lenovo in view of Hosseini to be configured with the search space set (SSS) indices {1,2,3} associated with the first DCI format and the SSS indices {4, 5, 6} associated with the second DCI format based on the teachings of Cirik who discloses space set (SSS) indices may be configured and associated with a first DCI and the SSS indices may be configured and associated with a second DC, because the motivation lies in Cirik that configuration parameters indicating the search space set indices for the one or more search space sets may be provided via signaling in order for the UE to determine the search space sets for monitoring PDCCH candidates for receiving the DCI.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Lenovo) “Feature lead summary #4 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft; R1-2210662 in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qualcomm Incorporated “Multi-cell PUSCH/PUSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft, R1-2207251.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: after the first number of CCEs carrying the first DCI have been blind decoded, monitor only the second group of CCE candidates corresponding to the second DCI to perform blind decoding until the second number of CCEs carrying the second DCI have been blind decoded; (see Pg. 46 i.e., “CATT” & Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., When DCI format 0_1/1_1 is used for single-cell scheduling CC2, the BD/CCE budget is counted on CC2, which is max 36…This requires the UE to process doubled number of BDs/CCEs for DCIs for a scheduled CC…Opt. 1: a UE monitoring DCI 0_X/1_X for a CC-set is allowed to support monitoring legacy DCI format (i.e., “second DCI”) only for one CC in the CC-set and DCI 0_X/1_X whose BD/CCE/DCI-size are counted on the same CC in the CC-set…In the same example above, BD/CCE of the legacy DCI formats (i.e., “second DCI”) for CC-1 is counted on the same pool as DCI 0_X/1_X i.e., on CC-1), but does not disclose the claim feature of and after the second number of CCEs carrying the second DCI have been blind decoded, monitor only the first group of CCE candidates corresponding to the first DCI to perform blind decoding until the first number of CCEs carrying the first DCI have been blind decoded. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Qualcomm Incorporated “Multi-cell PUSCH/PUSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft, R1-2207251.
Qualcomm discloses that a UE can monitor PDCCH candidates for multi-cell scheduling mode for a set of cells and PDCCHs for each cell of the set of cells in a legacy self-scheduling mode where the network can dynamically switch/fallback between the multi-cell scheduling and legacy self-scheduling modes (see Pg. 6, Section 4 i.e., Para 1 i.e., These two modes should be able to be switched via an explicit indication & Para 2 the network can indicate dynamic switch/fallback from multi-cell scheduling to legacy self-scheduling (i.e., dynamic indication may switch back to multi-cell scheduling monitoring after legacy self-scheduling monitoring by the UE the is performed)).
(Qualcomm suggests as such, this way can achieve benefits of both DCI overhead reduction and UE power saving thanks to the use of multi-cell scheduling and delivering flexible and granular scheduling thanks to the use of legacy DCI formats with self-scheduling, (see Pg. 6, Section 4)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that after the second number of CCEs carrying the second DCI have been blind decoded as disclosed in Lenovo in view of Hosseini switch back to monitoring only the first group of CCE candidates corresponding to the first DCI to perform blind decoding until the first number of CCEs carrying the first DCI have been blind decoded based on the teachings of Qualcomm who discloses that a UE can monitor PDCCH candidates for multi-cell scheduling mode for a set of cells and PDCCHs for each cell of the set of cells in a legacy self-scheduling mode where the network can dynamically switch/fallback between the multi-cell scheduling and legacy self-scheduling modes, because the motivation lies in Qualcomm that as such, this way can achieve benefits of both DCI overhead reduction and UE power saving thanks to the use of multi-cell scheduling and delivering flexible and granular scheduling thanks to the use of legacy DCI formats with self-scheduling.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Lenovo) “Feature lead summary #4 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft; R1-2210662 in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US (2024/0032045).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the configuring the UE to support the first DCI and the second DCI comprises: configuring the UE to support the first DCI in the first DCI format and configuring the UE to support the second DCI in the second DCI format, (Lenovo, see Pg. 57 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4 i.e., a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X and to monitor legacy DCI formats, Pg. 67 i.e., “Qualcomm”, & Pg. 81 i.e., “Qualcomm” opt.3: where the number of cells that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the DCI 0_X/1_X and that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the legacy DCI formats are up to the UE capability), but does not disclose the claim feature of configuring the UE to support the first DCI in the first DCI format based on a first information element and the second DCI in the second DCI format based on a second IE different from the first IE. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chen et al. US (2024/0032045).
Chen discloses configuring a UE to support a first DCI in a first DCI format based on a first information element and a second DCI in a second DCI format based on a second IE different from the first IE, (see Para [0125] i.e., the configuration information may be specific to a DCI format. For example, the configuration may be separately configured (e.g., via different RRC messages of different RRC information elements) for a DCI format 0_1 and for a DCI format 0_2)
(Chen suggests configuring the DCI formats using different RRC information elements in order for the UE to properly receive the DCI scheduling communications for the UE (see Para’s [0004-0005], [0023-0024], [0092], & [0125])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the configuring the UE to support the first DCI in the first DCI format and configuring the UE to support the second DCI in the second DCI format as disclosed in Lenovo in view of Hosseini to each be respectively configured using a first information element and a second IE different from the first IE based on the teachings of Chen who discloses configuring a UE to support a first DCI in a first DCI format based on a first information element and a second DCI in a second DCI format based on a second IE different from the first IE, because the motivation lies in Chen for configuring the DCI formats using different RRC information elements in order for the UE to properly receive the DCI scheduling communications for the UE.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Lenovo) “Feature lead summary #4 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft; R1-2210662 in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. US (2024/0251401)
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the report further includes a parameter identifying a set of cells associated with the first DCI format, the parameter indicating a carrier indicator corresponding to the set of cells for which the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions, and wherein the parameter is included in a radio resource control (RRC) configuration. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Xiong et al. US (2024/0251401).
Xiong discloses wherein the report further includes a parameter identifying a set of cells associated with the first DCI format, (see Para [0091] i.e., for multi-cell scheduling, a joint carrier indication (i.e., “parameter”) and BWP indication table can be configured by dedicated RRC signaling and one field in the DCI may may be used to select one row of the table for both carrier and BWP indication)
the parameter indicating a carrier indicator corresponding to the set of cells for which the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions (see Para [0091] i.e., joint carrier indication), and wherein the parameter is included in a radio resource control (RRC) configuration (see Table 1 & Para [0091] i.e., for multi-cell scheduling, a joint carrier indication (i.e., “parameter”) and BWP indication table can be configured by dedicated RRC signaling and one field in the DCI may may be used to select one row of the table for both carrier and BWP indication)
(Xiong suggests the joint carrier indication (i.e., parameter) configured by the RRC signaling is used in order for the DCI to select a carrier indication for indicating the scheduled cells to the UE for configuring and supporting multi-cell scheduling for the UE (see Para’s [0075] & [0091])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the multi-cell scheduling scheduled by the DCI for the UE as disclosed in Lenovo in view of Hosseini to include dedicated RRC signaling including the parameter indicating a carrier indicator corresponding to the set of cells for which the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions as disclosed in the teachings of Xiong, because the motivation lies in Xiong that the joint carrier indication (i.e., parameter) configured by the RRC signaling is used in order for the DCI to select a carrier indication for indicating the scheduled cells to the UE for configuring and supporting multi-cell scheduling for the UE.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Lenovo) “Feature lead summary #4 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI”, 3GPP Draft; R1-2210662 in view of Hosseini et al. US (2021/0153177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MolavianJazi et al. US (2023/0057605).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the UE of claim 1, including wherein the first DCI is configured to schedule data transmissions for two or more cells of the plurality of cells (Lenovo, see Pg. 46, CATT i.e., DCI format 0_X/1_X used for multi-cell scheduling), and wherein the first DCI can schedule only a single cell (Lenovo, see Pg. 16 i.e., Medorator2 & Pg. 29 i.e., DCI format 0_X/1_X can be used for scheduling a single cell), but does not disclose wherein the UE is not configured to process the first DCI when the first DCI schedules only a single cell. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of MolavianJazi et al. US (2023/0057605).
MolavianJazi wherein the UE is not configured to process the first DCI when the first DCI schedules only a single cell, (see Para’s [0071] i.e., USS set DCI formats (i.e., “first DCI”) & [0384] i.e., a UE can assign a higher priority to the first search space set and drop other (single-cell scheduling) USS sets (i.e., UE does not process the single cell scheduling DCI) before dropping the first search space set)
(MolavianJazi suggests the UE drops the single cell scheduling DCI when a number of PDCCH candidates exceeds a predetermined limit on a number of PDCCH candidates that the UE can monitor per slot or span for satisfying the UE processing capability, (see Para’s [0077], [0082], [0384], & [0392])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first DCI which can schedule only a single cell as disclosed in Lenovo in view of Hosseini to not be processed by the UE based on the teachings of MolavianJazi who discloses wherein the UE is not configured to process the first DCI when the first DCI schedules only a single cell, because the motivation lies in MolavianJazi that the UE drops the single cell scheduling DCI when a number of PDCCH candidates exceeds a predetermined limit on a number of PDCCH candidates that the UE can monitor per slot or span for satisfying the UE processing capability.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the report indicates a capability of the UE to support scheduling of a cell using the first DCI format together with at least one additional cell, (Lenovo, see Pg. 22 i.e., MTK i.e., an additional optional UE capability (support DCI 0_X/1_X (i.e.., first DCI format”) and legacy cross carrier scheduling at the same time, Pg. 34 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., 36 BDs are available for a scheduled CC which is based on an optional UE capability suggests the network receives the optional UE capability (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 44, Section 3.3.3, Para 1 i.e., Proposal 2-5rev3, Pg. 57 i.e., “Qualcomm” i.e., proposal 4 i.e., a UE can be configured to monitor a DCI format 0_X/1_X and to monitor legacy DCI formats…Additional CIF/nCI values for monitoring legacy DCI formats for the scheduled cells in the set can be supported subject to optional UE capability signaling (i.e., “capability report”), Pg. 67 i.e., opt 1 & Pg. 81 i.e., “Qualcomm” opt.3: where the number of cells that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the DCI 0_X/1_X and that can be configured with PDCCH candidates of the legacy DCI formats are up to the UE capability) and scheduling of the cell by one of the first DCI format or the second DCI format when the other of the first DCI format or the second DCI format is used for the cell (see Pg. 67 i.e., Qualcomm i.e., DCI 0_X/1_X used for multi-cell scheduling and legacy DCI format are monitored on the same CC (i.e., “cell”) in the CC-set), the combination of Lenovo in view of Hosseini does not disclose and wherein, based on the report, the UE is configured to restrict scheduling of the cell by one of the first DCI format or the second DCI format when the other of the first DCI format or the second DCI format is used for the cell. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of MolavianJazi et al. US (2023/0057605).
MolavianJazi discloses the UE is configured to restrict scheduling of the cell by one of the first DCI format or the second DCI format when the other of the first DCI format or the second DCI format is used (see Para’s [0071] i.e., USS set DCI formats (i.e., “first DCI”) & [0384] i.e., a UE can assign a higher priority to the first search space set and drop other (single-cell scheduling) USS sets (i.e., UE does not process the single cell scheduling DCI) before dropping the first search space set)
(MolavianJazi suggests the UE drops the single cell scheduling DCI and prioritizes multi-cell scheduling when a number of PDCCH candidates exceeds a predetermined limit on a number of PDCCH candidates that the UE can monitor per slot or span for satisfying the UE processing capability, (see Para’s [0077], [0082], [0384], & [0392])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the scheduling of the cell by one of the first DCI format or the second DCI format when the other of the first DCI format or the second DCI format is used for the cell based on the report as disclosed in Lenovo in view of Hosseini to restrict scheduling of the cell by one of the first DCI format or the second DCI format when the other of the first DCI format or the second DCI format is used as disclosed in MolavianJazi, because the motivation lies in MolavianJazi that the UE drops the single cell scheduling DCI and prioritizes multi-cell scheduling when a number of PDCCH candidates exceeds a predetermined limit on a number of PDCCH candidates that the UE can monitor per slot or span for satisfying the UE processing capability.
Conclusion
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 ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights