DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted July 8, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Moon fails to anticipate claim 1 because “skipping [in Moon] is described at the SSG level or for selected SSSG(s) as a whole; it lacks the claimed per-SSS determination logic” (Remarks, p. 9). The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant does not direct attention to a particular claim limitation, but rather all limitations within the body of claim 1. After careful review, the Examiner maintains that Moon discloses receiving configuration information for at least one skipping candidate, as well as the selecting of at least one candidate based on received DCI ([0070], [0071], [0083]-[0085], [0095]-[0098]).
Further, or alternatively, R1-2107808 teaches configuration and implementation of skipping durations used within each SSSG (section 2.2.1). To this point, Applicant argues “[a] person of ordinary skill seeking to implement Rel-17 power saving would have had no motivation or suggestion to combine [Moon and R1-210808]” (Remarks, p. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, R1-2107808 explicitly discusses supporting indication to the UE via DCI to adapt PDCCH monitoring that results in significant flexibility (section 2.2.1).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0362954 A1 (hereinafter “Moon”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Moon, in view of the non-patent literature document titled PDCCH Monitoring Reduction In Active Time (hereinafter “R1-2107808”).
Regarding claims 1, 13, 14, and 16: Moon teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive configuration information including at least one candidate for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) skipping, wherein each candidate indicates a number of PDCCH monitoring occasions or a time period (see, e.g., [0079], [0081], [0082], [0085]; the base station configures the terminal with candidates for PDCCH skipping and/or occasion monitoring);
receive downlink control information (DCI) indicating one candidate of the at least one candidate for a current active search space set (SSS) group (SSSG); and determine a number of skipped PDCCH monitoring occasions or a skipped time period for each SSS included in the current active SSSG based on the one candidate (see, e.g., [0070], [0071], [0083]-[0085], [0095]-[0098]; the terminal determines the monitoring occasions based on the configuration indicated in DCI).
Moon does not explicitly state wherein each signaled candidate indicates a “time period.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Moon (either by virtue of the alternative claim language and/or the monitoring functionality’s relevance to duration; note figures 3-5), this feature is nevertheless taught in R1-2107808 (see, e.g., section 2; note 2.3, time intervals applied for monitoring and/or skipping; note also overlapping teachings with respect to PDCCH configuration and monitoring). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of R1-2107808, such as the signaling, configuration, and/or timing functionality, within the system of Moon, in order to improve power savings.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 1 is applicable to the base station, method, and processor of claims 13, 14, and 16, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 17: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: for each SSS included in the current active SSSG, determine the number of skipped PDCCH monitoring occasions to be the number of PDCCH monitoring occasions indicated in the one candidate (see, e.g., [0083]-[0085], [0095]-[0098]; the terminal determines the monitoring occasions based on the configuration indicated in DCI). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 2 is applicable to the processor of claim 17.
Regarding claims 3 and 18: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: for a reference SSS included in the current active SSSG, determine the number of skipped PDCCH monitoring occasions to be the number of PDCCH monitoring occasions indicated in the one candidate (see, e.g., Moon [0100]-[0103]; and/or R1-2107808 section 2; note a starting SSSG). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 3 is applicable to the processor of claim 18.
Regarding claims 4 and 19: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: determine a reference skipped time period based on the number of PDCCH monitoring occasions indicated in the one candidate; and for each SSS other than the reference SSS included in the current active SSSG, determine the number of skipped PDCCH monitoring occasions to be PDCCH monitoring occasions in the reference skipped time period (see, e.g., Moon [0083]-[0085], [0095]-[0098]; the terminal determines the monitoring occasions based on the configuration indicated in DCI). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 4 is applicable to the processor of claim 19.
Regarding claims 5 and 20: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein the reference SSS is configured by a network or is a IE specific search space set (USS) with a lowest periodicity in the current active SSSG (see, e.g., Moon [0017]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 5 is applicable to the processor of claim 20.
Regarding claims 6 and 21: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein the at least one candidate indicating the time period is configured for a reference SSSG (see, e.g., Moon [0017]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 6 is applicable to the processor of claim 21.
Regarding claim 7: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: when the current active SSSG is the reference SSSG, determine the skipped time period for each SSS included in the current active SSSG to be the time period indicated in the one candidate; and when the current active SSSG is not the reference SSSG, determine the skipped time period for each SSS included in the current active SSSG based on the time period indicated in the one candidate and a scaling factor, wherein the scaling factor is configured by a network or determined based on a first number of PDCCH monitoring occasions within a determined time period of a first reference SSS of the reference SSSG and a second number of PDCCH monitoring occasions within the determined time period of a second reference SSS in the current active SSSG (see, e.g., Moon [0070], [0071], [0083]-[0085], [0095]-[0098]; the terminal determines the monitoring occasions based on the configuration indicated; note also Moon [0100]-[0103]; and/or R1-2107808 section 2; note a starting SSSG and progressive states for monitoring). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein, when the DCI is received when a SSSG switching timer is running and the PDCCH skipping ends before an expiration of the SSSG switching timer, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: perform a SSSG switching and terminate the SSSG switching timer in response to an end of the PDCCH skipping (see, e.g., Moon [0014], [0020]-[0023], [0076], [0077], [0094], [0105]; and/or R1-2107808 section 2; note timer implementations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein, when the DCI is received when a SSSG switching timer is running and the PDCCH skipping ends after an expiration of the SSSG switching timer, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: terminate the PDCCH skipping and perform a SSSG switching in response to the expiration of the SSSG switching timer; or perform an SSSG switching in response to an end of PDCCH skipping (see, e.g., Moon [0014], [0020]-[0023], [0076], [0077], [0094], [0105]; and/or R1-2107808 section 2; note timer implementations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein, when the DCI is received when a SSSG switching timer is running, a bit field for PDCCH skipping or SSSG switching in the DCI is invalid (see, e.g., Moon [0014], [0020]-[0023], [0076], [0077], [0123], [0126], [0127]; and/or R1-2107808 section 2; note codepoint and/or bit field used in conjunction with timer functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches wherein, when the DCI is received when a SSSG switching timer is running, a codepoint of a bit field in the DCI for SSSG switching is invalid or used for indicating one or more candidates for PDCCH skipping (see, e.g., Moon [0014], [0020]-[0023], [0076], [0077], [0123], [0126], [0127]; and/or R1-2107808 section 2; note codepoint and/or bit field used in conjunction with timer functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 12.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon, alternatively in view of R1-2107808, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0051589 A1 (hereinafter “Nam”).
Regarding claim 8: Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 further teaches switching with a basis on periodicity, but does not explicitly state implementing a threshold. Therefore, Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808 does not explicitly state “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: switch to an SSSG sparser than instead of the current active SSSG when the number of skipped PDCCH monitoring occasions or the skipped time period is larger than or equal to a threshold, wherein the threshold is configured by a network or determined based on a PDCCH monitoring periodicity configured for a reference SSS of the SSSG. However, this feature is taught by Nam (see, e.g., [0086], [0097], [0109], [0118]; note switching criteria). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Nam, such as the dynamic monitoring functionality, within the system of Moon alternatively modified by R1-2107808, in order to increase power saving efficiency.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights