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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method of claim 1 and claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
A computer storage medium storing a computer program typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se, particularly when the specification is silent. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that the claims be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5.In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
6. Claim 1-2, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheng et al. (US 2019/0158205 – IDS), hereinafter referred to as Sheng.
Regarding claim 1, Sheng teaches a method that may comprise: (1) acquiring 2310-fig.23 a common radio resource control (RRC) configuration. The first CORESET configuration may specify Type-0 common search space (first search space). The method may also comprise monitoring 2311 a PDCCH, wherein the PDCCH with a predefined DCI format may monitored in the Type-0 common search space (equivalent to monitoring a first search space associated to a first type of control information); (2) acquiring 2312-fig.23 a dedicated RRC configuration including a second CORESET configuration. The second CORESET configuration may specify UE-search space. The second CORESET configuration may include information for indicating a downlink control information (DCI) format (equivalent to a second search space associated to a second type of control information); (3) The PDCCH with the indicated DCI format may be monitored 2314-fig.23 in the UE-specific search space, see 0221 (equivalent to based on operation pertaining to [a second search space associated to a second type of control information).
Regarding claim 2, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Sheng for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The UE 1002-fig.2 can be configured as a feedback radio node to perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 9, Sheng teaches the second CORESET configuration may specify UE-specific search space. The second CORESET configuration may include information for indicating a downlink control information (DCI) format. The PDCCH with the indicated DCI format may be monitored 2314-fig.23 in the UE-specific search space. The first CORESET configuration may not include the information for indicating any DCI format. The PDCCH with a predefined DCI format may be monitored in the Type-0 common search space, see 0221.
Regarding claim 10, please see the rejection of claim 1. The PDCCH with a predefined DCI format has higher reliability than the second or any DCI format, see 0030.
Regarding claim 11, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Sheng for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The UE 1002-fig.2 includes a memory 1005 storing instructions 1007a, when executed by a processor 1003-fig.2 cause the UE to perform the claimed steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. Claims 3-4, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng, in view of Reial et al. (US 2021/0185683), hereinafter referred to as Reial.
Regarding claim 3, Sheng teaches a method that may comprise: (1) acquiring 2310-fig.23 a common radio resource control (RRC) configuration. The first CORESET configuration may specify Type-0 common search space (first search space). The method may also comprise monitoring 2311 a PDCCH, wherein the PDCCH with a predefined DCI format may monitored in the Type-0 common search space (equivalent to monitoring a first search space associated to a first type of control information); (2) acquiring 2312-fig.23 a dedicated RRC configuration including a second CORESET configuration. The second CORESET configuration may specify UE-search space. The second CORESET configuration may include information for indicating a downlink control information (DCI) format (equivalent to a second search space associated to a second type of control information); (3) The PDCCH with the indicated DCI format may be monitored 2314-fig.23 in the UE-specific search space, see 0221 (equivalent to based on operation pertaining to [a second search space associated to a second type of control information).
Sheng, however, fails to teach configuring a feedback radio node with a condition configuration, the condition configuration indicating one or more condition for the feedback radio node for [monitoring… a second type of control information].
Reial teaches a CORESET defines the time/frequency (T/F) size where a downlink (DL) control channel (e.g., PDCCH) is confined. Different CORESETs may be configured for transmitting different types of DL control information (associated with different types of search spaces) or for meeting the requirements of different 5G use cases (e.g., shorter time duration to reduce latency), see, e.g., Figure 1, which shows exemplary locations of PDCCH transmissions (multiple locations/allocations are also possible) associated with a specified CORESET. Within a CORESET, multiple PDCCH resource candidates with each formed by a set of CCEs can be configured. This is configured by the RRC parameters in the associated search space configuration Information Element (IE). In addition, the associated search space IE also configures the parameters including PDCCH monitoring occasions, monitoring periodicity, monitoring duration, etc., to indicate to the UE how and where to search for the PDCCH, see par. 0038. In other words, Reial teaches monitoring duration as a condition configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a monitoring duration as a condition configuration taught by Reial into the system of Sheng. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to accommodate different types of DL control information that associated with different types of search spaces, as shorter time duration reduces latency.
Regarding claim 4, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected under Sheng-Reial for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3. In Sheng, the UE 1002-fig.2 can be configured as a feedback radio node to perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 20, Sheng teaches the second CORESET configuration may specify UE-specific search space. The second CORESET configuration may include information for indicating a downlink control information (DCI) format. The PDCCH with the indicated DCI format may be monitored 2314-fig.23 in the UE-specific search space. The first CORESET configuration may not include the information for indicating any DCI format. The PDCCH with a predefined DCI format may be monitored in the Type-0 common search space, see 0221.
Regarding claim 21, please see the rejection of claim 3. In Sheng, the PDCCH with a predefined DCI format has higher reliability than the second or any DCI format, see 0030.
12. Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng, in view of Ouchi et al. (US 2019/0044639), hereinafter referred to as Ouchi.
Regarding claim 5, Sheng discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein one or both the first type of control information pertains to a first signaling format for control information; and the second type of control information pertains to a second signaling format for control information.
Ouchi teaches that the terminal can use L1 signaling (PDCCH DCI format of control information of a certain field), see par. 0150.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ signaling formats taught by Ouchi into the system of Sheng. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable to terminal to rely on the type of control information to discard or to regulate the transmission power so that it does not exceed the maximum output power.
Regarding claim 6, Sheng discloses all claimed limitations, except, wherein monitoring the first search space is based on a condition configuration, the condition configuration indicating one or more conditions pertaining to operation pertaining the second search space.
Ouchi teaches that the terminal can use L1 signaling (PDCCH DCI format of control information of a certain field) and L2 signaling (equivalent to the control information of the MAC CE), see par. 0150. In other words, monitoring the first search space is based on L1 signaling as a condition configuration, and L2 signaling as a condition configuration pertaining to operation pertaining the second search space.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ signaling formats taught by Ouchi into the system of Sheng. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable to terminal to decode control information associated with the search space in wireless communication systems like 5G.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected under Sheng-Ouchi for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected under Sheng-Ouchi for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
13. Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng, in view of Horiuchi et al. (US 2014/0126506), hereinafter referred to as Horiuchi.
Regarding claim 7, Sheng discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein the operation pertaining to a second search space pertains to reception of control information in the second search space.
Horiuchi discloses a reception section that receives control information mapped to the first search space and control information mapped to the second search space, see 0026.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a reception section that receives control information mapped to the second search space taught by Horiuchi into the system of Sheng. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a concern regarding shortage of resources in a mapping region for PDCCH, and thereby
enable transmission power control on control signals transmitted to a terminal near a cell edge or interference control for interference by a control signal to another cell or interference from another cell to the cell provided by the base station.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected under Sheng-Horiuchi for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
14. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng, in view of Sarajlic et al. (US 2020/0374856)
Regarding claim 8, Sheng discloses all claimed limitations, except, wherein the operation pertaining to a second search space pertains to transmission or reception of signaling scheduled by control information received in the second search space.
Sarajlic teaches that in general, radio signaling propagating through a space in a propagation channel may undergo different effects distorting the signal. Some of these effects can lead to a signal being spread out in time and/or being delayed, e.g. delay dispersion, see 0034. In other words, transmission or reception of signaling may undergo different effects, such as the signal being delayed, see 0034
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a radio signaling propagation through a space taught by Sarajlic into the system of Sheng. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to account for transmission or reception of delayed signaling from a transmitter to a receiver in association with control information received in the second search space.
15. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng, in view of Reial, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ouchi.
Regarding claim 16, Sheng and Reail disclose all claimed limitations, except wherein one or both the first type of control information pertains to a first signalling format for control information-and/er; and the second type of control information pertains to a second signaling format for control information.
Ouchi teaches that the terminal can use L1 signaling (PDCCH DCI format of control information of a certain field), see par.0150.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ signaling formats taught by Ouchi into the combined system of Sheng and Reial. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable to terminal to rely on the type of control information to discard or to regulate the transmission power so that it does not exceed the maximum output power.
Regarding claim 17, Sheng and Reial disclose all claimed limitations, except, wherein monitoring the first search space is based on a condition configuration, the condition configuration indicating one or more conditions pertaining to operation pertaining the second search space.
Ouchi teaches that the terminal can use L1 signaling (PDCCH DCI format of control information of a certain field) and L2 signaling (equivalent to the control information of the MAC CE), see par. 0150. In other words, monitoring the first search space is based on L1 signaling as a condition configuration, and L2 signaling as a condition configuration pertaining to operation pertaining the second search space.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ signaling formats taught by Ouchi into the combined system of Sheng and Reial. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable to terminal to decode control information associated with the search space in wireless communication systems like 5G.
16. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng, in view of Reial, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Horiuchi.
Regarding claim 18, Sheng and Reial disclose all claimed limitations, except wherein the operation pertaining to a second search space pertains to reception of control information in the second search space.
Horiuchi discloses a reception section that receives control information mapped to the first search space and control information mapped to the second search space, see 0026.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a reception section that receives control information mapped to the second search space taught by Horiuchi into the system of Sheng. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a concern regarding shortage of resources in a mapping region for PDCCH, and thereby
enable transmission power control on control signals transmitted to a terminal near a cell edge or interference control for interference by a control signal to another cell or interference from another cell to the cell provided by the base station.
17. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng, in view of Reial, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sarajlic.
Regarding claim 19, Sheng and Reial disclose all claimed limitations, except, wherein the operation pertaining to a second search space pertains to transmission or reception of signaling scheduled by control information received in the second search space.
Sarajlic teaches that in general, radio signaling propagating through a space in a propagation channel may undergo different effects distorting the signal. Some of these effects can lead to a signal being spread out in time and/or being delayed, e.g. delay dispersion, see 0034. In other words, transmission or reception of signaling may undergo different effects, such as the signal being delayed, see 0034
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a radio signaling propagation through a space taught by Sarajlic into the combined system of Sheng and Reial. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to account for transmission or reception of delayed signaling from a transmitter to a receiver in association with control information received in the second search space.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US 20190124663) is cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465