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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 15-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,760. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations are similar in scope with obvious wording variations.
Instant Application
US 11,979,760
Claim 15. A method, comprising:
at a user equipment (UE):
determining if a first component carrier (CC) and a second CC of a carrier aggregation (CA) combination are collocated; and
selecting a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH} monitoring type based on, at least, the determination of whether the first and second CC are collocated.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the PDCCH symbols received on the first CC and the second CC are aligned or unaligned, wherein
selecting the PDCCH monitoring type is further based on whether the PDCCH symbols received on the first CC and the second CC are aligned or unaligned.
Note that the table above only compared the conflicting claim 15. However, the Applicant is advised that the other independent and dependent claims in instant application also have their conflicting claims in US 11,979,760 and thus are rejected on a similar fashion as that in the table above, resulting in a double patenting rejection to all claims in instant application.
Thus, this double patenting rejection is necessary to prevent unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
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) 15, 18, 21 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saber (US 20210282001) and provisional documents (63/000049 and 63025779).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 15/21/26, Saber teaches A method, comprising:
at a user equipment (UE) ([0074], “Example 1: The UE is configured with N=3 serving cells both with (X, Y)=(4,3) as shown in FIG. 2F.”):
determining if a first component carrier (CC) and a second CC of a carrier aggregation (CA) combination ([Fig.2F and 0074], “in FIG. 2F, the three (4,3) cells CC1, CC2 and CC3 are considered to be aligned as the union of all search spaces results in span pattern that is covered by (4,3).”) are collocated ([0074], “aligned”); and
selecting a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH} monitoring type ([0081], “where the span patterns on the three cells have been determined to be aligned. The UE is not required to monitor more than M PDCCH..total,(X,Y),μ PDCCH candidates.” In other words, number of PDCCH candidates to be monitored is based on whether the CCs are aligned.) based on, at least, the determination of whether the first and second CC are collocated ([0074], “the three (4,3) cells CC1, CC2 and CC3 are considered to be aligned.”).
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 18, Saber teaches wherein the determining is based on CA configuration information received from a base station to which the UE is connected ([Abs], “sending, by the network, to the first UE, a first search space (SS) configuration for a first component carrier in a carrier aggregation (CA) scheme.”).
Regarding claim(s) 27, Saber teaches wherein, when the first and second CC are not collocated ([0085], “FIG. 2K is an example of an unaligned case.”), an unaligned PDCCH monitoring type is selected ([0088], “the UE is not required to monitor more than C.sub.PDCCH.sup.total,(X,Y),μ non-overlapping CCEs or M.sub.PDCCH.sup.total,(X,Y),μ PDCCH candidates.”).
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) 19, 24 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber in view of Hosseini (US 20210360593).
Regarding claim(s) 19/24/34, Hosseini teaches wherein the determining is based on a cell group to which the CA combination belongs ([0077], “all carriers of the MCG and all carriers of the SCG are configured with a Release 16 PDCCH. That is, the UE 120 may determine PDCCH monitoring capability values, for the MCG and the SCG, for span-based monitoring.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Saber to specify cell group as taught by Hosseini. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to apply Release 16 PDDCH configurations to MCG and SCG.
Claim(s) 20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber in view of Noh (US 20200305134).
Regarding claim(s) 20/25, Noh teaches wherein the multiple CA combinations are divided into multiple collocation groups within a cell group ([0261], “master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG).”), the method further comprising:
reporting, to a cell of the cell group, a capability of the UE with respect to supporting PDCCH monitoring types for each of the multiple collocation groups ([0261], “terminal that reports that the DC operation is possible through the UE capability report may report pdcch-BlindDetectionMCG-UE and pdcch-BlindDetectionSCG-UE, which are PDCCH monitoring UE capability reports for a master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Saber to specify report capability of a UE as taught by Noh. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to perform blind detection.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber in view of Takeda (US 20180242316 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 33, Takeda teaches process, based on signals received from a base station, CA configuration information comprising a collocation flag that indicates whether the first CC and the second CC are collocated ([0145], “, the TTI at which the user equipment receives the downlink control information indicating the Cross Carrier Scheduling to the CC1 is the first TTI overlapped with the TTI of the CC4 (the second CC).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Saber to specify CC1 overlaps with another CC as taught by Takeda. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for cross carrier scheduling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17, 22-23 and 28-32 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411