DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on 27 April 2026 in which claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-13, 37, 39, 41-51 are currently pending and claims 4-5, 8-11, 14-36, 38, 40.
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 37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37 is directed to an terminal, which is considered a machine. A machine is defined as “a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices” (MPEP 2106). However, the body of the claim does not consist of at least two parts/components. The parts/components are mentioned in the preamble but some are not recited in the body of the claim. In addition, the body of the claim are a series of steps.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 6-7, 12-13, 37, 39, 41-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (PG Pub US 2022/0312380 A1) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (PG Pub US 2022/0070704 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 37, 39, Chen discloses a method, a terminal, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (figs. 1, 2, 14).
monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) in M control resource sets (CORESETs), in response to existence of the M CORESETs in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on an active downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP) (“the UE 115-a monitors PDCCH candidates 210 in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in multiple CORESETs .. on one or more active downlink BWPs” [0110]) and existence of repeated PDCCHs in PDCCH candidates associated with the M CORESETs, M being an integer greater than or equal to 1 (“the linked PDCCH candidates carry repeats of the same control information” [0079], “the BS 105-a may repeat a same set of coded bits in each of the PDCCH candidate 210-a and the PDCCH candidate 210-b .. link PDCCH candidates 210 in different SS sets (which may be associated with corresponding control resource sets (CORESETs)) for repetition” [0085]).
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose monitor the PDCCH in a second reference CORESET and/or in a CORESET having a same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET, and monitoring, by the terminal, the PDCCH in a third reference CORESET and/or in a CORESET having a same QCL-typeD property as the third reference CORESET, wherein the second reference CORESET is one CORESET among the M CORESETs, the third reference CORESET is one CORESET among the M CORESETs, and the second reference CORESET has a different QCL-typeD property from the third reference CORESET.
Nevertheless, Khoshnevisan discloses “the overlapping symbols are associated with different QCL-Type-D properties” [0048], “each CORESET of the second set of CORESETs may be associated with two QCL-Type-D properties, and each one of the two QCL-Type-D properties is different from the first monitoring QCL-Type-D property” [0065], “from the second set of CORESETs, the UE identifies a third set of CORESETs that completely overlaps the set of symbols 400” [0079], “a second set of CORESETs. Each CORESET of the second set of CORESETs occupies a symbol comprising a same QCL-Type-D property as an overlapping symbol of the set of symbols 400. PDCCH candidates in the second set of CORESETs may be monitored” [0078], “a second QCL-Type-D property of the two QCL-Type-D properties of the third CORESET is different from both the first QCL-Type-D property or the second QCL-Type-D property” [0117].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the PDCCH in a second reference CORESET and/or in a CORESET having a same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET, and monitoring, by the terminal, the PDCCH in a third reference CORESET and/or in a CORESET having a same QCL-typeD property as the third reference CORESET, wherein the second reference CORESET is one CORESET among the M CORESETs, the third reference CORESET is one CORESET among the M CORESETs, and the second reference CORESET has a different QCL-typeD property from the third reference CORESET because “a UE may identify multiple PDCCH candidates in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions across multiple CORESETs. The UE may attempt to decode one or more PDCCH candidates based on a priority rule” [0006].
Regarding claims 2, 41, 47, Chen, Khoshnevisan discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Chen discloses all of the M CORESETs have a same quasi co-location type D (QCL-typeD) property; or there is a CORESET having a different QCL-typeD property among the M CORESETs; or there are CORESETs having a same QCL-typeD property among the M CORESETs (“PDCCH candidates 210 in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in multiple CORESETs that have a same or different QCL-TypeD properties” [0110]).
Regarding claims 3, 42, 48, Chen, Khoshnevisan discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Chen discloses monitor the PDCCH in a first reference CORESET and/or in a CORESET having a same QCL-typeD property as the first reference CORESET, wherein the first reference CORESET is one CORESET among the M CORESETs (“the UE 115-a may select a CORESET in accordance with a priority rule and the UE 115-a may monitor for PDCCH candidates 210 in the CORESET and in any CORESET that has the same QCL-TypeD properties as the selected CORESET” [0111], “the UE 115-a may monitor PDCCH candidates 210 in a first CORESET, and any other CORESET from the multiple CORESETs having same QCL-TypeD properties as the first CORESET” [0110]).
Regarding claims 6, 43, 49, Chen, Khoshnevisan discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Chen discloses in response to existence of a cell having a CORESET associated with a CSS in a first cell set in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on the active DL BWP, the second reference CORESET is: a CORESET that belongs to a cell with a lowest index among the cell having the CORESET associated with a CSS in the first cell set, and is associated with a CSS with a lowest index, wherein the first cell set comprises: cells corresponding to the M CORESETs (“the first CORESET may correspond to a CSS set with a lowest index in the cell with the lowest index containing CSS” [0111]).
Regarding claims 7, 44, 50, Chen, Khoshnevisan discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Chen discloses in response to absence of a cell having a CORESET associated with a CSS in a first cell set in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions on the active DL BWP, the second reference CORESET is: a CORESET that belongs to a cell with a lowest index among a cell having a CORESET associated with a USS in the first cell set, and is associated with a USS with a lowest index (“the first CORESET may correspond to a USS set with a lowest index in the cell with a lowest index .. Such a priority rule may be with respect to, firstly, whether the CORESET corresponds to a CSS set (associated with a relatively higher priority) or a USS set (associated with a relatively lower priority) and, secondly, to component carrier or serving cell index (in which a lowest index has a highest priority) and, thirdly, to SS set index (in which a lowest index has a highest priority)” [0111]).
Regarding claims 12, 45, 51, Chen, Khoshnevisan discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Chen discloses in response to existence of the CORESET having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET in a CORESET associated with PDCCH repetitions among the M CORESETs, and in response to existence of the CORESET associated with a CSS in a fourth CORESET, the third reference CORESET is: a CORESET that belongs to a cell with a lowest index among a cell to which the CORESET associated with a CSS in the fourth CORESET belongs, and belongs to the fourth CORESET and is associated with a CSS with a lowest index, wherein the fourth CORESET comprises: a CORESET having a different QCL-typeD property from the second reference CORESET in a CORESET associated with the CORESET having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET among the M CORESETs; or the fourth CORESET comprises: a CORESET having a different QCL-typeD property from the second reference CORESET in the CORESET associated with PDCCH repetitions among the M CORESETs (“the UE 115-a monitors PDCCH candidates 210 in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in multiple CORESETs that have a same or different QCL-TypeD properties on one or more active downlink BWPs of one or more cells, the UE 115-a may monitor PDCCH candidates 210 in a first CORESET, and any other CORESET from the multiple CORESETs having same QCL-TypeD properties as the first CORESET, on the active downlink BWP of a cell from the one or more cells” [0110]).
Regarding claims 13, 46, Chen, Khoshnevisan discloses everything claimed as applied above. in response to existence of the CORESET having the same QCL-typeD property as the second reference CORESET in a CORESET associated with PDCCH repetitions among the M CORESETs, and in response to absence of the CORESET associated with a CSS in a fourth CORESET, the third reference CORESET is: a CORESET that belongs to a cell with a lowest index among a cell to which a CORESET associated with a USS in the fourth CORESET belongs, and belongs to the fourth CORESET and is associated with a USS with a lowest index (“the first CORESET may correspond to a USS set with a lowest index in the cell with a lowest index .. Such a priority rule may be with respect to, firstly, whether the CORESET corresponds to a CSS set (associated with a relatively higher priority) or a USS set (associated with a relatively lower priority) and, secondly, to component carrier or serving cell index (in which a lowest index has a highest priority) and, thirdly, to SS set index (in which a lowest index has a highest priority)” [0111]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTINE D FUQUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
CHRISTINE DUONG FUQUA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights