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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on October 04, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDSs have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Specification
1. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND METHOD FOR RECEPTION OF PHYSICAL DOWNLINK CONTROL CHANNEL, REPETITIONS OVER MULTIPLE CONTROL RESOURCE SETS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.”
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains a phrase that can be implied. In particular, the abstract recites “One aspect of a terminal according to the present disclosure includes …” The Examiner suggests the Applicant to either re-word or remove this phrase. Correction is required. See § MPEP 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 6 recite the limitation “an offset between at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels and a physical shared channel scheduled by the plurality of downlink control channels” in lines 5-7. The limitation renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear what type of offset is meant (e.g. time, subcarrier spacing, slot offset, symbol offset, etc.).
Claims 2-4 depend from independent claim 1, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230156738, hereinafter “Gao”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gao unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches A terminal (Fig. 7: UE 412; and Fig. 11: a wireless communication device 1100) comprising:
a receiving section (Fig. 11 and para [0160]: one or more transceivers 1106 ...) that receives a plurality of downlink control channels supporting application of different control resource set pool indices (Fig. 7 and para [0150]: As illustrated, the UE 412 is configured with a search space set that includes two or more CORESETs, as described above (step 701). In this example, the configuration is received from TRP1 700-1, but is not limited thereto. As described above, TRP1 700-1 transmits a first PDCCH or DCI repetition in a first CORESET (step 702), and TRP2 700-2 transmits a second PDCCH (the first and second PDCCH are interpreted as “a plurality of downlink control channels”) or DCI repetition in a second CORSET (step 704). The first and second CORESETs are different ones of the two or more CORESETs included in the configured search space set (interpreted as “application of different control resource set pool indices”).) (Fig. 7 and para [0150]: At the UE 412, the UE 412 receives the PDCCH or DCI repetitions in the first and second CORESETs and attempts to decode the PDCCH or DCI based on the received repetitions, as described above (step 706).); and
a control section (Fig. 11 and para [0160]: one or more processors 1102) that, when an offset between at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels and a physical shared channel scheduled by the plurality of downlink control channels is smaller than a given value, controls reception of the physical shared channel, based on (para [0022]: If each of all the TCI codepoints is mapped to a single TCI state by a MAC CE and the offset between the reception of a DL DCI and the corresponding PDSCH is less than a threshold timeDurationForQCLconfigured by higher layers(interpreted as “when an offset between at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels and a physical shared channel scheduled by the plurality of downlink control channels is smaller than a given value,”), the UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH of a serving cell are quasi co-located with the RS(s) with respect to the QCL parameter(s) used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication (interpreted as “controls reception of the physical shared channel, based on …”) of the CORESET associated with a monitored search space with the lowest CORESET-ID in the latest slot (interpreted as “based on … the default TCI state configured irrespective of control resource set pool indices”) in which one or more CORESETs within the active bandwidth part (BWP) of the serving cell are monitored by the UE.)
Examiner’s note: With respect to the claimed language “the default TCI state configured irrespective of control resource set pool indices”, the instant application discloses that, in para [0171] of Publication,
[0171] When the given higher layer parameter is not configured, and the offset between reception of the PDCCH/DCI and reception of its corresponding PDSCH is smaller than the given value, for the UE, the QCL of the CORESET having the smallest CORESET ID out of the CORESETs in the latest slot in which monitoring of the CORESET is performed may be used as the default QCL of the PDSCH, irrespective of the CORESET pool ID (or without the CORESET pool ID being taken into consideration).
[0172] In other words, the default TCI state/QCL of the PDSCH may be determined based on the smallest CORESET ID in the latest CORESET monitoring slot, without the CORESET pool ID being taken into consideration.
Thus, the “If…the offset between the reception of a DL DCI and the corresponding PDSCH is less than a threshold timeDurationForQCLconfigured by higher layers UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH of a serving cell are quasi co-located with the RS(s) with respect to the QCL parameter(s) used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication of the CORESET associated with a monitored search space with the lowest CORESET-ID in the latest slot” in para [0022] of Gao is interpreted as the “when an offset between at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels and a physical shared channel scheduled by the plurality of downlink control channels is smaller than a given value, controls reception of the physical shared channel, based on … or the default TCI state configured irrespective of control resource set pool indices” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it is a radio communication method claim corresponding to the terminal claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it is a base station claim corresponding to the terminal claim 1, except limitations “a base station (Fig. 7 and para [0149]: TRP1 700-1 and TRP2 700-2 may correspond to different beams from the same base station)”, “a transmitting section (Fig. 8 and para [0154]: one or more radio units 810)”, and “a control section (Fig. 8: a control system 802)”, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 2, Gao teaches The terminal according to claim 1, wherein
the control section judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel, based on a specific control resource set out of control resource sets having been monitored in a most recent slot in which the control resource sets are monitored (para [0022]: If each of all the TCI codepoints is mapped to a single TCI state by a MAC CE and the offset between the reception of a DL DCI and the corresponding PDSCH is less than a threshold timeDurationForQCLconfigured by higher layers, the UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH of a serving cell are quasi co-located with (interpreted as “judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel”) the RS(s) with respect to the QCL parameter(s) used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication of the CORESET associated with a monitored search space with the lowest CORESET-ID in the latest slot in which one or more CORESETs within the active bandwidth part (BWP) of the serving cell are monitored by the UE (interpreted as “… based on a specific control resource set out of control resource sets having been monitored in a most recent slot in which the control resource sets are monitored”).
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches The terminal according to claim 1, wherein
the control section judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel, based on a specific control resource set corresponding to a control resource pool index of a specific downlink control channel out of the plurality of downlink control channels (para [0022]: If each of all the TCI codepoints is mapped to a single TCI state by a MAC CE and the offset between the reception of a DL DCI and the corresponding PDSCH is less than a threshold timeDurationForQCLconfigured by higher layers, the UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH of a serving cell are quasi co-located (interpreted as “judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel”) with the RS(s) with respect to the QCL parameter(s) used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication of the CORESET associated with a monitored search space with the lowest CORESET-ID (interpreted as “based on a specific control resource set corresponding to a control resource pool index of a specific downlink control channel out of the plurality of downlink control channels”) in the latest slot in which one or more CORESETs within the active bandwidth part (BWP) of the serving cell are monitored by the UE.).
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches The terminal according to claim 1, wherein
the control section judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel, based on a specific control resource set out of control resource sets corresponding to at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels (para [0022]: If each of all the TCI codepoints is mapped to a single TCI state by a MAC CE and the offset between the reception of a DL DCI and the corresponding PDSCH is less than a threshold timeDurationForQCLconfigured by higher layers, the UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH (interpreted as “judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel”) of a serving cell are quasi co-located with the RS(s) with respect to the QCL parameter(s) used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication of the CORESET associated with a monitored search space with the lowest CORESET-ID in the latest slot in which one or more CORESETs (interpreted as “a specific control resource set out of control resource sets corresponding to at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels”) within the active bandwidth part (BWP) of the serving cell are monitored by the UE.).
Conclusion
1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230180250: A terminal receives DCI for scheduling the transmission of a PDSCH on a plurality of carriers, determines a time unit where the one or more PDSCHs are transmitted on the plurality of carriers in accordance with a reference SCS or an SCS of each carrier, and receives the scheduled PDSCH in the determined one or more time units on the plurality of carriers.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230127381: Systems and methods for determining Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) states for multiple transmission occasions are provided. In some embodiments, a method performed by a wireless device for determining TCI states for a plurality of transmission occasions includes one or more of: receiving a configuration, where the configuration comprises one or more of: a list of TCI states; a TCI activation command in activating a subset of the TCI states and mapping between each of plurality of codepoints to one or more of the activated TCI states; and a time threshold; receiving in a slot a scheduling message scheduling the plurality of transmission occasions; determining a plurality of time offsets between receiving the scheduling message and each transmission occasion of the plurality of transmission occasions; determining a TCI state for each transmission occasion of the plurality of transmission occasions if at least one time offset of the plurality of time offsets is less than the time threshold; and receiving the plurality of transmission occasions with the determined TCI states.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230164779: When a higher layer parameter (e.g., tci-PresentInDCI) indicating whether there is a TCI field in DCI configured for UE is set to be enabled for a CORESET scheduling a PDSCH, UE may assume that there is a TCI field in DCI format 1_1 of a PDCCH transmitted in a corresponding CORESET. When tci-PresentInDCI is not configured for a CORESET scheduling a PDSCH or when a PDSCH is scheduled by DCI format 1_0 and a time offset between reception of DL DCI and a corresponding PDSCH is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (e.g., timeDurationForQCL), in order to determine a PDSCH antenna port QCL, UE may assume that a TCI state or a QCL assumption for a PDSCH is the same as a TCI state or a QCL assumption applied to a CORESET used for PDCCH transmission.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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 W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights