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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 6/25/26.
Claims 18-25 and 27-37 are pending.
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) 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”), and Nam et al., US 2022/0264626, (“Nam”), newly cited.
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 31, Zheng teaches “A method, comprising:
identifying 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);
determining 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.
Zheng does not teach but Nam teaches “monitoring the CORESET #0 in several monitoring occasions defined by different SSBs,
wherein the monitoring occasions comprise a repetition configuration, and at least one of the following:
the monitoring occasions are in the same slot or within a time window and a MIB is configured to provide the repetition configuration;
the repetition configuration is predetermined or hard-coded; and
the repetition configuration is associated to a puncturing pattern of the CORESET #0 alone or in combination with SSB” (see Fig. 6 and paragraph no. 0075, “In some aspects, the set of monitoring occasions are associated with a CORESET (e.g., a Type0-PDCCH CORESET as described above in connection with FIG. 3). Accordingly, the set of monitoring occasions may be included in a pattern of non-consecutive slots, and the pattern may be associated with a spacing and offset indicated in the broadcast message. In some aspects, the spacing and offset may be based at least in part on a periodicity associated with the pattern, a quantity of SSB indices”; see paragraph no. 0076 which discloses that the monitoring occasions include a first and second set of consecutive repetitions and paragraph no. 0091 which discloses that the repetitions having a periodicity M which may be determined using a table, thus teaching at least the alternative “the repetition configuration is predetermined”).
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 Nam to improve latency and increase quality and/or reliability of communications because the UE is able to monitor all configured monitoring occasions, as suggested by Nam in paragraph no. 0068.
Regarding independent claim 37, this independent claim is a corresponding computer readable medium claim of the method claim 31 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 31 applies with equal force to this independent claim 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 claim 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, Myung and Nam vis a vis the rejection of claim 31.
Regarding claim 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) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, Myung and Nam as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Ko, US 2024/0049289, (“Ko”).
Regarding claim 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, Myung and Nam 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) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, Myung, and Nam as applied to claim 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, Myung, and Nam 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) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, Myung, and Nam as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view Hu et al., US 2022/0078848, (“Hu”).
Regarding claim 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, Myung, and Nam 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-25 and 27-30 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 18, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the newly amended claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 31 and 37 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
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights