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 .
Claims 18-37 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 6/13/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18-19, 22, 31-32, 35, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al., US 2023/0156742, (“Zheng”), in view of Myung et al., US 2023/0300881, (“Myung”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches “An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 2, processor 280); and
at least one memory (Fig. 2, memory 282) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
identify a special configuration for at least one search space associated to a control resource set of index 0 (CORESET#0) which is configured to carry information for initial access to a communication network (paragraph no. 0070, “During initial access, a UE may identify an initial CORESET (CORESET #0) configuration from a field (e.g., pdcchConfigSIB1) in a maser information block (MIB). This initial CORESET may then be used to configure the UE (e.g., with other CORESETs and/or bandwidth parts via dedicated (UE-specific) signaling”; paragraph no. 0091, “Each search space is associated with one CORESET … the search space ID associated with CORESET#0 is SearchSpace ID #0”; the claimed “special configuration” reads on the configuration disclosed in paragraph no. 0070, supra – see also, paragraph no. 0072 which discloses one or more tables of CORESET configurations including a configuration for CORESET#0); and
determine an extended search space set based on the identified special configuration” (paragraph no. 0091, “Each search space is associated with one CORESET … the search space ID associated with CORESET#0 is SearchSpace ID #0”; see also, paragraph no. 0067, “Within each CORESET, one or more search spaces … may be defined for a given UE”; the claimed “extended search space set” appears implicit since Zheng discloses one or more search spaces for each CORESET – however, see below for an explicit teaching).
Myung discloses that a CORESET#0 may be linked to search space sets #0/1/2/3 and hence, explicitly teaches an “extended search space set” associated with CORESET#0 as required by claim 1, see paragraph no. 0371.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng by incorporating the teachings of Myung to increase the amount of control information sent via, CORESET#0, to the UE, thereby improving the communications between the UE and the base station, as suggested by Zheng in paragraph no. 0067.
Regarding independent claims 31 and 37, these independent claims are corresponding method and computer readable medium claims of the apparatus claim 18 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 18 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claim 37, see Zheng, memory 282 in Fig. 2 for a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 19 and 32, the limitations “wherein the apparatus is further caused to: monitor the CORESET#0 based on the determined extended search space set” are deemed to logically follow from the above modification of Zheng and Myung vis a vis the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 22 and 35, Zheng teaches “wherein the apparatus is caused to identify the special configuration based on at least one of the following:
a certain synchronization raster point, on which the apparatus detected a synchronization signal block (SSB) transmitted by a base station of the communication network;
information carried on a physical broadcast channel or on a master information block (MIB) (paragraph no. 0070 discloses a master information block (MIB)); and
information regarding the radio frequency channel used.”
Claim(s) 20 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Myung as applied to claims 18, 31 above, and further in view of Ko, US 2024/0049289, (“Ko”).
Regarding claims 20 and 33, Zheng does not teach but Ko teaches “wherein the at least one search space corresponds to a physical downlink control channel of type 0” (paragraph no. 0172).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng and Myung by incorporating the teachings of Ko to enable the UE to use the well known Type0-PDCCH search space, thereby facilitating the communications between the UE and the base station.
Claim(s) 21, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Myung as applied to claims 18, 31 above, and further in view Wei et al., US 2022/0294580, (“Wei”).
Zheng teaches “wherein the CORESET#0 is configured to transmit a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)” (e.g., see paragraph no. 0070) but not “wherein the PDCCH is a punctured PDCCH.”
Wei teaches that a NB-PDCCH may be punctured, see paragraph no. 0067.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng and Myung by incorporating the teachings of Wei to enable the BS to transmit one or more repetitions of a NB-PDCCH, as suggested by Wei in paragraph no. 0067.
Claim(s) 23-24, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Myung as applied to claims 18, 31 above, and further in view Hu et al., US 2022/0078848, (“Hu”).
Regarding claims 23 and 36, Zheng and Myung teach “wherein the apparatus is caused to determine the extended search space set to include valid control channel elements (CCEs) which are configured to carry scheduling information for system information” (see Zheng, paragraph nos. 0068, 0070 and Myung, paragraph no. 0371).
Zheng and Myung do not teach “wherein the valid CCEs are from two or more CORESET#0” as required by claims 23 and 36. Zheng teaches one CORESET#0.
Hu discloses that a UE may monitor a PDCCH of multiple CORESET#0, see paragraph no. 0066.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng and Myung by incorporating the teachings of Hu to enable the UE to improve the reception of the initial control information, via multiple CORESET#0(s), to gain initial access to the network.
Regarding claim 24, Zheng teaches the first alternative limitation “CCEs that a base station actually transmitted” (paragraph no. 0068).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Myung as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view Takeda et al., US 2022/0070909, (“Takeda”).
Zheng teaches “wherein a predefined CCEs form a PDCCH candidate; and
the predefined CCEs in the PDCCH candidate comprise at least one or more of the following: interleaved mapping within the CORESET#0, non-interleaved mapping within the CORESET#0, valid CCEs” (paragraph no. 0068 – the “valid CCEs” are taught in this paragraph).
While Zheng discloses differing aggregation levels (paragraph no. 0068), it does not teach “with one of: an aggregation level 4, an aggregation level 8 and an aggregation level 16.”
Takeda discloses that a PDCCH candidate may be configured by aggregation levels 4, 1, 2, 8, 16, and 32, see paragraph no. 0026.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng and Myung by incorporating the teachings of Takeda to use any one of the aggregation levels 4, 8, or 16 to improve the transmission of the PDCCH to the UE.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Myung as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view Alriksson et al., US 2022/0200773, (“Alriksson”).
Zheng does not teach but Alriksson teaches “wherein SSBs with the same block index of the same center frequency location are quasi co-located” (paragraph no. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng and Myung by incorporating the teachings of Alriksson to improve the uplink/downlink communications between the UE and the base station.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Myung as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view Song et al., US 2023/0156488, (“Song”).
Zheng does not teach but Song teaches “wherein the apparatus is caused to monitor the CORESET#0 in several monitoring occasions defined by different SSBs” (paragraph no. 0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng and Myung by incorporating the teachings of Song to improve the uplink/downlink communications between the UE and the base station.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Myung as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view Kim et al., US 2023/0164781, (“Kim”).
Zheng does not teach but Kim teaches “the CORESET#0 comprises 24 physical resource blocks” (paragraph no. 0236).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Zheng and Myung by incorporating the teachings of Kim to improve the uplink/downlink communications between the UE and the base station. In addition, the modification would have been further obvious since the specific number of PRBs used to form the CORESET#0 is deemed nothing more than the application of routine skill to implement certain design parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 29 are 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.
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations recited in each of the claims 26 and 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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 TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights