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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7-9, 12 and 33-34 is/are objected because of the following informalities (or vagueness):
Regarding claim 2, said claim recites in part "wherein the second reference CORESET is one of …., and the first CORESET is determined according to …." The underlined limitations cause an antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9 and 12, said claim also recites "the first CORESET" which causes an antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 4, 33 and 34, said claims recite CSS and/or USS without spelling out the abbreviations in the said claims or depending claims. The abbreviations need to be clearly spelled out.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 29-30, 33 and 59 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik et al. (US 2025/0106859, “Cirik”, provisional application 63056129 (“129”)) in view of Mondal et al. (US 2024/0284467, “Mondal”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cirik unless otherwise mentioned.
Cirik comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a monitoring method, comprising:
performing, by a terminal, physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring in M control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with two transmissions configuration indication (TCI) states ([0343] “The wireless device may monitor downlink control channels, for DCI, in the at least two CORESETs based on at least two activated TCI states (e.g., TCI state 8 of first CORESET and TCI state 23 of second CORESET as shown in FIG. 21C).”. See [129, 0354].) and/or N CORESETs associated with one TCI state (This alternative is not examined.), when the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states (See aforesaid [0343 and Fig. 21C] for two TCI states.) and the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state exist ([0338] “The wireless device may determine/select a first TCI state, of the at least two TCI states, based on the first TCI state of a first CORESET (e.g., TCI state 8 of first CORESET in FIG. 21B).”. See [129, 0349].) in CORESETs associated with PDCCH candidates monitored in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on an active downlink bandwidth part (BWP) ([0347] “Spatial settings for transmission of the transport block may be same as spatial settings for reception (e.g., PDCCH receptions) via the at least two CORESETs with the lowest (or highest) two CORESET indicators/indexes on the active downlink BWP of the cell.” Note that Cirik does not specifically describe about overlapping. This will be discussed in view of Mondal.),
wherein M is an integer and M >= 1 (See aforesaid [0343] for M=2), and N is an integer and N >= 0 (See aforesaid [0338] N=1.).
It is noted that while disclosing CORESETs, Cirik does not specifically teach about overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Mondal as follows;
in CORESETs associated with PDCCH candidates monitored in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on an active downlink bandwidth part (BWP) ([Mondal, 0047] “monitors PDCCH candidates in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in multiple CORESETs that are associated with the same TCI-group and have same or different QCL-Type D properties on active DL BWP(s)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Cirik by using the features of Mondal in order to effectively monitor PDCCHs such that “The PDCCH prioritization technique can be extended to multi-DCI multi-panel operation (CORESETPoolIndex with different values configured) by specifying the prioritization operation” [Mondal, 0026].
Regarding claim 29, it is a terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a processor, a memory, a communication interface, and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the processor” (See Fig. 15B.), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 59, it is non-transitory CRM claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “store computer programs for electronic data interchange (EDI)” ([0189] “The processing system 1508 and the processing system 1518 may be associated with a memory 1514 and a memory 1524, respectively. Memory 1514 and memory 1524 (e.g., one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums) may store computer program instructions or code that may be executed by the processing system 1508 and/or the processing system 1518”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 2 and 30, the method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 29, respectively, wherein performing, by the terminal, PDCCH monitoring in the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states and/or the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state comprises:
performing, by the terminal, PDCCH monitoring in a first reference CORESET and/or a CORESET associated with two TCI states and having the same quasi-co-location (QCL)- typeD property as the first reference CORESET, wherein the first reference CORESET is one of the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states ([0341] “The wireless device may, to determine the plurality of transmission powers, determine a first RS resource indicator/index providing a first RS resource (e.g., with QCL type D) in the first TCI state (or QCL assumption) of the first CORESET (e.g., with the lowest CORESET index/indicator).”); or
performing, by the terminal, PDCCH monitoring in a second reference CORESET and/or a first CORESET, wherein the second reference CORESET is one of the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states and the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state, and the first CORESET is determined according to a QCL-typeD property for the second reference CORESET (This alternative is not examined.).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, wherein in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on the active downlink BWP, when a first cell set has a cell corresponding to a CORESET associated with two TCI states (See aforesaid [0347].) and associated with a common search space (CSS) ([0102] “The base station may configure the wireless device with one or more CORESETS, for example, for a downlink BWP in a set of configured downlink BWPs on a primary cell (PCell) or on a secondary cell (SCell). A search space may comprise a set of locations in the time and frequency domains where the wireless device may monitor/find/detect/identify control information. The search space may be a wireless device-specific search space (e.g., a UE-specific search space) or a common search space”), the first reference CORESET is:
a CORESET that is associated with two TCI states and associated with a CSS with the lowest index in a cell with the lowest index among at least one cell corresponding to a CORESET associated with two TCI states and associated with a CSS in the first cell set ([0212] “The wireless device may determine the at least two default TCI states based on two activated TCI states of two CORESETs with the lowest two CORESET indicators/indexes in the active downlink BWP.”, [Mondal, 0047] “multiple CORESETs that are associated with the same TCI-group”, and [Mondal, 0048] “the CORESET corresponds to the CSS set with the lowest index in the cell with the lowest index containing CSS”),
wherein the first cell set comprises cells corresponding to the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states and cells corresponding to the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state ([Mondal, 0047] “monitors PDCCH candidates in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in multiple CORESETs that are associated with the same TCI-group and have same or different QCL-Type D properties on active DL BWP(s) of one or more cells the UE monitors PDCCHs only in a CORESET, and in any other CORESET from the multiple CORESETs having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the CORESET, on the active DL BWP of a cell from the one or more cells”).
Regarding claim 33, the terminal of claim 30, wherein in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on the active downlink BWP, when a first cell set has a cell corresponding to a CORESET associated with a CSS ([0102] “The base station may configure the wireless device with one or more CORESETS, for example, for a downlink BWP in a set of configured downlink BWPs on a primary cell (PCell) or on a secondary cell (SCell). A search space may comprise a set of locations in the time and frequency domains where the wireless device may monitor/find/detect/identify control information. The search space may be a wireless device-specific search space (e.g., a UE-specific search space) or a common search space”), the second reference CORESET is:
a CORESET associated with a CSS with the lowest index in a cell with the lowest index among cells corresponding to a CORESET associated with a CSS in the first cell set ([0212] “The wireless device may determine the at least two default TCI states based on two activated TCI states of two CORESETs with the lowest two CORESET indicators/indexes in the active downlink BWP.”, [Mondal, 0047] “multiple CORESETs that are associated with the same TCI-group”, and [Mondal, 0048] “the CORESET corresponds to the CSS set with the lowest index in the cell with the lowest index containing CSS”).
Claim(s) 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik et al. (US 2025/0106859, “Cirik”, provisional application 63056129 (“129”)) in view of Mondal et al. (US 2024/0284467, “Mondal”) and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2024/0205711, “Seo”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cirik unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that while disclosing CORESETs, Cirik does not specifically teach about a CORESET with no CSS. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Seo as follows;
the method of claim 2, wherein in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on the active downlink BWP, when a first cell set does not have a cell corresponding to a CORESET associated with two TCI states and associated with a CSS, the first reference CORESET is:
a CORESET that is associated with two TCI states and associated with a user equipment (UE)-specific search space (USS) with the lowest index in a cell with the lowest index among at least one cell corresponding to a CORESET associated with two TCI states and associated with an USS in the first cell set ([Seo, 0174] “If none of CORESETs includes a CSS, then a UE may select a CORESET that includes an USS with the lowest index (or ID) at a monitoring occasion in an active DL BWP of a serving cell with the lowest serving cell index.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Cirik by using the features of Seo in order to effectively monitor PDCCHs such that “monitoring a PDCCH only in the selected at least one CORESET, among the plurality of CORESETs” [Seo, 0005].
Claim(s) 5-8, 34 and 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik et al. (US 2025/0106859, “Cirik”, provisional application 63056129 (“129”)) in view of Mondal et al. (US 2024/0284467, “Mondal”) and further in view of MolavianJazi et al. (US 2025/0142569, “MolavianJazi”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cirik unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that while disclosing CORESETs, Cirik does not specifically teach about another CORESET associated with a CSS. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Mondal as follows;
the method of claim 2, wherein in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on the active downlink BWP, when a first cell set has a cell corresponding to a CORESET associated with a CSS, the second reference CORESET is: a CORESET associated with a CSS with the lowest index in a cell with the lowest index among cells corresponding to a CORESET associated with a CSS in the first cell set ([MolavianJazi, 0190] “the CORESET corresponds to the CSS set with the lowest index in the cell with the lowest index containing CSS”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Cirik by using the features of MolavianJazi in order to effectively schedule resources such that “to scheduling enhancements for wireless communication systems including scheduling for dynamic spectrum sharing and cross-carrier scheduling enhancements.” [MolavianJazi, 0004].
Regarding claims 6 and 34, the method of claim 2 and the terminal of claim 30, respectively, wherein in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on the active downlink BWP, when a first cell set does not have a cell corresponding to a CORESET associated with a CSS, the second reference CORESET is:
a CORESET associated with an USS with the lowest index in a cell with the lowest index among cells corresponding to a CORESET associated with an USS in the first cell set ([MolavianJazi, 0190] “otherwise, to the USS set with the lowest index in the cell with lowest index. The lowest USS set index is determined over all USS sets with at least one PDCCH candidate in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions.”).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 2, wherein
when the second reference CORESET is a CORESET associated with one TCI state, the first CORESET comprises: at least one CORESET associated with two TCI states and having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states ([MolavianJazi, 0190] “the monitors PDCCHs and in any other CORESET from the multiple CORESETs having same QCL-TypeD properties as the CORESET”), and/or
at least one CORESET associated with one TCI state and having the same QCL- typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state (This alternative is not examined.).
Regarding claims 8 and 36, the method of claim 2 and the terminal of claim 30, respectively, wherein
when the second reference CORESET is a CORESET associated with one TCI state, the first CORESET comprises: a CORESET associated with two TCI states and having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states ([MolavianJazi, 0190] “the monitors PDCCHs and in any other CORESET from the multiple CORESETs having same QCL-TypeD properties as the CORESET”),
wherein QCL-typeD properties corresponding to the two TCI states for the CORESET associated with two TCI states are the same ([MolavianJazi, 0190] “For the purpose of determining the CORESET, a first CSI-RS associated with a SS/PBCH block in a first cell and a second CSI-RS in a second cell that is also associated with the SS/PBCH block are assumed to have same QCL-TypeD properties.”); and/or
a CORESET associated with one TCI state and having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state (This alternative is not examined.).
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik et al. (US 2025/0106859, “Cirik”, provisional application 63056129 (“129”)) in view of Mondal et al. (US 2024/0284467, “Mondal”) and further in view of Cirik et al. (US 2025/0070942, “Cirik942”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cirik unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that while disclosing CORESETs, Cirik does not specifically teach about a CORESET having the same QCL-typeD with one TCI state . It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Cirik942 as follows;
the method of claim 2, wherein
when the second reference CORESET is a CORESET associated with one TCI state, the first CORESET comprises: a CORESET associated with two TCI states and having the same QCL-typeD property as a third reference CORESET among the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states (This alternative is not examined.), and/or
a CORESET associated with one TCI state and having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state ([Cirik942, 0441] “the wireless device may group one or more coresets, of the plurality of coresets, with the same TCI state in a coreset group of the plurality of coreset groups. In an example, the grouping the one or more coresets with the same TCI state may comprise that the wireless device groups the one or more coresets, each with a respective TCI state indicating the same reference signal with the same quasi co-location type (e.g., QCL TypeD) in the coreset group.”),
wherein the third reference CORESET is a CORESET determined from the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states according to the QCL-typeD property for the second reference CORESET (See above. This wherein clause is related to the first alternative which is not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Cirik by using the features of Cirik942 in order to effectively schedule resources such that “The wireless device determines, based on a parameter associated with an SRS resource set, a TCI state among the first TCI state and the second TCI state.” [Cirik942, Abstract].
Claim(s) 12-13 and 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik et al. (US 2025/0106859, “Cirik”, provisional application 63056129 (“129”)) in view of Mondal et al. (US 2024/0284467, “Mondal”) and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0048114, “Wu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cirik unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 12 and 40, it is noted that while disclosing CORESETs, Cirik does not specifically teach about a CORESET with two TCI states and having the same QCL-typeD. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wu as follows;
the method of claim 2 and the terminal of claim 30, respectively, wherein
when the second reference CORESET is a CORESET associated with two TCI states, the first CORESET comprises:
a CORESET associated with two TCI states and having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states ([Wu, 0004] “At 3GPP Radio Access Network (RAN) 1#103-e meeting, the scheme of allocating two activated Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) states to a same COntrol REsource SET (CORESET) and the scheme of merging and decoding between two Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) candidates associated with different CORESETs are passed. In NR R16, for overlapped PDCCH candidates in time domain, a UE only needs to monitor a PDCCH candidate with a same Quasi Co-Location (QCL)-typeD characteristic as a specific CORESET.”), and/or
a CORESET associated with one TCI state and having the same QCL-typeD property as at least one QCL-typeD property for the second reference CORESET among the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state (This alternative is not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Cirik by using the features of Wu in order to efficiently monitor overlapped PDCCH candidates such that “if the first search space set is linked to a second search space set, the given resource set is connected to a fifth spatial state; the fifth spatial state is used to configure a QCL relationship between a DMRS port/DMRS ports of a PDCCH transmitted in the second search space set” [Wu, 0014].
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 12, wherein
the CORESET associated with two TCI states and having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states, and/or
the CORESET associated with one TCI state and having the same QCL-typeD property as at least one QCL-typeD property for the second reference CORESET among the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state comprises:
at least one CORESET associated with two TCI states and having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states (See aforesaid [Wu, 0004]), and/or
at least one CORESET associated with one TCI state and having the same QCL- typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state.
Claim(s) 14 and 42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik et al. (US 2025/0106859, “Cirik”, provisional application 63056129 (“129”)) in view of Mondal et al. (US 2024/0284467, “Mondal”) and Wu et al. (US 2023/0048114, “Wu”), and further in view of Cirik et al. (US 2025/0070942, “Cirik942”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cirik unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 14 and 42, the method of claim 12 and the terminal of claim 40, respectively, wherein
the CORESET associated with two TCI states and having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states (See aforesaid [Wu, 0004]), and/or
the CORESET associated with one TCI state and having the same QCL-typeD property as at least one QCL-typeD property for the second reference CORESET among the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state (Not examined) comprises:
at least one CORESET associated with two TCI states among the M CORESETs associated with two TCI states (See aforesaid [Wu, 0004]) and/or
at least one CORESET associated with one TCI state among the N CORESETs associated with one TCI state (Not examined.),
wherein a QCL typeD property for the CORESET associated with one TCI state is the same as at least one QCL typeD property for the second reference CORESET (See aforesaid [Cirik942, 0441].), and QCL-typeD properties corresponding to the two TCI states for the CORESET associated with two TCI states are the same as two QCL-typeD properties for the second reference CORESET (See aforesaid [Wu, 0004]).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Cirik942 are the same as for claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411