DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on December 22, 2025.
Claims 45-63 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 45-63 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on Applicant’s new claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 50, 57, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 50, 57, and 63, the limitation “
M
P
D
C
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
s
is a maximum of monitored PDCCH candidates for the SCell with SCS numerology
μ
s
” does not appear in the referenced equation, i.e.,
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
-
⌊
α
⋅
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
⌋
, thus it is not clear what
M
P
D
C
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
s
is in reference to. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claims to read:
“…determining the maximum number of monitored PDCCH candidates includes
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
-
⌊
α
⋅
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
⌋
PDCCH candidates on the SCell, where
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
is a maximum of monitored PDCCH candidates for the PCell or the PSCell with sub-carrier spacing (SCS) numerology,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
s
μ
s
, and
M
P
D
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
is a maximum of monitored PDCCH candidates for the PCell or the PSCell.”
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 of this title, 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 45-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 2022/0361107)(“Takeda”) (see also provisional application 63/184626, with a filing date of 05/05/2021, which share similar paragraphs/figures as that of the US Application) in further view of Shi et al. (US 2023/0199752)(“Shi”), , in further view of ETSI TS 138 213 V15.13.0 (Apr. 2021). 5G; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (3GPP TS 38.213 version 15.13.0 Release 15)(“TS 138 213”).
As per claim 45, Takeda teaches an apparatus for a user equipment (UE) configured for operation in a New Radio (NR) network (i.e., UE, see abstract), the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry (see Fig. 9, ref. 940), wherein to configure the UE for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring in the NR network (see ¶0095), the processing circuitry is to:
decode a downlink control information (DCI) format received from a base station (see Fig. 5, ref. 105-b), the DCI format including a dormancy indicator, the dormancy indicator indicating whether a secondary cell (SCell) of the UE is dormant (i.e., dormancy state indication, see for example, Fig. 5, ref. 525, and ¶0118, “the dormancy indication may indicate that one or more secondary cells are to switch to a dormant bandwidth part”); and
determine … a … number of monitored PDCCH candidates (see Fig. 5, ref. 535, where monitoring PDCCH candidates, implies first determining a number of candidates to monitor); and
perform the PDCCH monitoring based on the determined … number of PDCCH candidates Id.; and
memory (see Fig. 9, ref. 940) coupled to the processing circuitry and configured to store the DCI format (see ¶0140).
As per claim 45, Takeda does not expressly teach configuring a scaling factor α for cross-carrier scheduling (CCS) from the SCell to a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PSCell) based on whether the SCell is dormant; and
determine, based on the scaling factor α, a … number of monitored PDCCH candidates.
Nevertheless, in the same art of cross-carrier scheduling, Shi teaches setting a BD/CCE scaling factor between PCell and SCell to 1, indicating SCell dormancy for flexibly adapting PDCCH capacity (see ¶0067, i.e, “When the scaling factor between the PCell and the SCell BD/CCE is (1, 0), the BD/CCE of the PCell is 1 times that of the per cell, and the BD/CCE of the SCell is 0 times that of the per cell, which implicitly releases the SCell-schedule-PCell”. Also see ¶0069, “this may ensure that the change of PDCCH capacity can be flexibly adapted when the SCell supports the scheduling of the PCell/PSCell”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Takeda with the teachings of Shi for configuring a scaling factor based on SCell dormancy, and thereafter determine a capacity/maximum PDDCH candidates based on the set scaling factor. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been “to reduce the complexity of blind detection and save the power consumption of UEs” (see Shi, ¶0069).
Finally, the combination of Takeda and Shi, does not expressly teach the determined number of monitored PDCCH candidates in Takeda, is a determined maximum number of monitored PDCCH candidates.
Nevertheless, determining a maximum number of monitored PDCCH candidates by a UE was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, TS 38 213, see pp. 81, i.e., UEs are not required to monitor more than
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
)
PDCCH candidates on any scheduled cell, read as a determined maximum).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Takeda and Shi to determine by the UE a maximum number of PDCCH candidates based on the teachings of TS 38 213. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prevent exceeding, by the UE, a maximum number of required PDCCH monitoring candidates as set by 3GPP standards.
As per claim 46, Takeda further teaches wherein the DCI format is a DCI format 0_1 or a DCI format 1_1 (see ¶0118, i.e., “the DCI (e.g., 1_1 or 0_1)”).
As per claim 47, Takeda further teach wherein the dormancy indicator indicates the SCell is dormant (see ¶0118, “the dormancy indication may indicate that one or more secondary cells are to switch to a dormant bandwidth part”). Takeda does not teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Shi, teaches the scaling factor α is 1 (see ¶0067, i.e, “When the scaling factor between the PCell and the SCell BD/CCE is (1, 0), the BD/CCE of the PCell is 1 times that of the per cell, and the BD/CCE of the SCell is 0 times that of the per cell, which implicitly releases the SCell-schedule-PCell”).
The same motivation for combining Takeda and Shi in claim 45, applies equally well to claim 47.
As per claim 48, the combination of Takeda and Shi does not expressly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine the maximum number of monitored PDCCH candidates is
⌊
α
⋅
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
⌋
PDCCH candidates on the PCell or the PSCell, where
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
is a maximum of monitored PDCCH candidates for the PCell or the PSCell with sub-carrier spacing (SCS) numerology
μ
P
, and
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
is a maximum of monitored PDCCH candidates for cells that have SCS numerology
μ
P
as the PCell or the PSCell.
Nevertheless, as stated in TS 38 213, UEs are not required to monitor more than
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
)
PDCCH candidates on any scheduled cell (see pp. 81).
As such it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Takeda, Nory, and Shi to monitor based on the scaling factor in Shi (i.e., α)
⌊
α
⋅
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
⌋
PDCCH candidate on the PCell or the PSCell, which assuming a scaling factor, α, of 1 (see Shi, ¶0067, i.e, “When the scaling factor between the PCell and the SCell BD/CCE is (1, 0), the BD/CCE of the PCell is 1 times that of the per cell, and the BD/CCE of the SCell is 0 times that of the per cell, which implicitly releases the SCell-schedule-PCell”), would be equal to the maximum candidates required to monitor on the PCell under TS 38.213. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to conform the 3GPP standards for PDCCH monitoring.
As per claim 49, Takeda does not expressly teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Shi further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is to: disable the CCS from the SCell to the PCell or the PSCell based on the scaling factor α being 1 (i.e., indicating release of cross-carrier scheduling, see ¶0065-0067).
The same motivation for combining Takeda and Shi in claim 45, applies equally well to claim 49.
As per claim 50, Takeda does not expressly teach wherein when the dormancy indicator indicates the SCell is not dormant and the scaling factor α is different than 1, the processing circuitry is to:
determining the maximum number of monitored PDCCH candidates includes
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
-
⌊
α
⋅
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
⌋
PDCCH candidates on the SCell, where
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
is a maximum of monitored PDCCH candidates for the PCell or the PSCell with sub-carrier spacing (SCS) numerology,
μ
P
, … and where
M
P
D
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
is a maximum of monitored PDCCH candidates for the PCell or the PSCell.
Nevertheless, first, in the same art as noted above, Shi teaches when the SCell is not dormant and the scaling factor α for PCell monitoring is different than 1 (see Fig. 6, i.e., “.33”, “.5”, “.66”, etc.).
The same motivation for combining Takeda and Shi in claim 48, applies equally well to claim 45.
Finally, as stated in TS 38 213, UEs are not required to monitor more than
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
)
PDCCH candidates on any cell (see pp. 81).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the PCell scaling factor, α, in Shi (see Fig. 6, i.e., “.33”, “.5”, “.66”, etc.), when the SCell is not dormant, the maximum number of PDCCH candidates for the SCell based on the equation:
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
-
⌊
α
⋅
m
i
n
(
M
P
D
C
H
m
a
x
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
,
M
P
D
C
C
H
t
o
t
a
l
,
s
l
o
t
,
μ
P
)
⌋
. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prevent exceeding, by the UE, the maximum number of required PDCCH monitoring candidates as set by 3GPP standards.
As per claim 51, Takeda further teaches transceiver circuitry (see Fig. 9, ref. 915) coupled to the processing circuitry (see Fig. 9, ref. 940); and one or more antennas (see Fig. 9, ref. 925) coupled to the transceiver circuitry (see Fig. 9).
Claims 52-63 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 45-51 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441