DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 05/03/2024, 01/08/2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (US-20210195601) in view of Hamidi-Sepehr (US-20210306867).
As to claim 1, 8, 10: Khoshnevisan teaches a method for performing downlink reception by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, configuration information on a plurality of control resource sets (CORESETs) ([0134] the UE 115-a may be configured with a number of CORESETs in a given BWP and may also be configured with a number of associated search space set where each search space set may have a different number of candidates of the PDCCH 210 for a given aggregation level); and receiving, from the base station, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) based on the plurality of CORESETs ([0131] a first PDCCH 210-a and a second PDCCH 210-b may be transmitted to a UE 115-a via downlink transmission 205. PDCCH 210-a and PDCCH 210-b may each be associated with different search space sets. The multiple (e.g., two) search space sets may be associated with different CORESETs, and the different CORESETS may be associated with different TCI states), … , and wherein, based on a first search space set configured to the first CORESET being linked with a second search space set configured to the second CORESET ([0131] base station 105-a may indicate (e.g., via a configuration sent via RRC signaling) to the UE 115-a that the PDCCH 210-a and PDCCH 210-b are linked or associated with each other or that the associated search space sets are linked or associated with each other), … are applied to repetition transmission of the PDCCH ([0132-134] Information transmitted from the base station 105-a (e.g., DCI) may indicate the scheduling parameters for repetitions of the PDCCH 210-a and 210-b, which may occur across different TCI states).
Khoshnevisan may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of CORESETs include a first CORESET associated with a plurality of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states and a second CORESET associated with a single TCI state … a specific TCI state among the plurality of TCI states associated with the first CORESET and the single TCI state associated with the second CORESET. However, Hamidi teaches wherein the plurality of CORESETs include a first CORESET associated with a plurality of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states and a second CORESET associated with a single TCI state ([0072, 96] based on reported UE capability, a configured CORESET may be associated with M′ (>1) active TCI states; claim 8 wherein the CORESET is associated with a single active TCI state of the configured plurality of TCI states) … a specific TCI state among the plurality of TCI states associated with the first CORESET and the single TCI state associated with the second CORESET ([0072, 96], claim 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement CORESET associated with TCI states, taught by Hamidi, into the communication system, taught by Khoshnevisan, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve robustness. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Hamidi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (US-20210195601) in view of Hamidi-Sepehr (US-20210306867).
As to claim 2: Khoshnevisan teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the repetition transmission of the PDCCH is performed based on the first search space set and the second search space set ([0138] base station 105-a may transmit the search space set configuration to the UE 115-a in an RRC configuration. The base station 105-a may also transmit multiple PDCCH repetitions including, for example, PDCCH 210-a and PDCCH 210-b to the UE 115-a based on the configuration. PDCCH 210-a may be associated with a first search space set and PDCCH 210-b may be associated with a second search space set).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (US-20210195601), Hamidi-Sepehr (US-20210306867) in view of Venugopal (US-20210105805).
As to claim 3: Khoshnevisan teaches the method of claim 1.
Khoshnevisan may not explicitly teach wherein the specific TCI state corresponds to a TCI state using a lowest TCI state identifier or a TCI state using a highest TCI state identifier among the plurality of TCI states. However, Venugopal teaches wherein the specific TCI state corresponds to a TCI state using a lowest TCI state identifier or a TCI state using a highest TCI state identifier among the plurality of TCI states ([0062] lowest TCI state ID).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement lowest TCI ID, taught by Venugopal, into the TCI state, taught by Khoshnevisan, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide a default ID. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Venugopal and Khoshnevisan in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 4: Khoshnevisan teaches the method of claim 1.
Khoshnevisan may not explicitly teach wherein the specific TCI state corresponds to a first configured TCI state of a last configured TCI state among the plurality of TCI states. Veugopal teaches wherein the specific TCI state corresponds to a first configured TCI state of a last configured TCI state among the plurality of TCI states ([0062] lowest TCI state ID).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement lowest TCI ID, taught by Venugopal, into the TCI state, taught by Khoshnevisan, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide a default ID. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Venugopal and Khoshnevisan in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Moreover, it is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters or values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. The burden of showing criticality is on Applicant. In re Mason, 87 F.2d 370, 32 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1937); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. U.S., 320 U.S. 1, 57 USPQ 471 (1943); In re Schneider, 148 F.2d 108, 65 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1945); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Saether, 492 F.2d 849, 181 USPQ 36 (CCPA 1974); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since Venugopal discloses TCI state, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use any TCI state, including a first or last TCI state, absent a showing of criticality by Applicant.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (US-20210195601), Hamidi-Sepehr (US-20210306867) in view of Matsumura (US-20220272736).
As to claim 5: Khoshnevisan teaches the method of claim 1.
Khoshnevisan may not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving information indicating the specific TCI state from the base station. However, Matsumura teaches further comprising: receiving information indicating the specific TCI state from the base station ([0068, 86]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement indicating TCI state, taught by Matsumura, into the communication system, taught by Khoshnevisan, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable beam selection. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Matsumura and Khoshnevisan in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (US-20210195601), Hamidi-Sepehr (US-20210306867) in view of Yi (US-20200351892).
As to claim 6: Khoshnevisan teaches the method of claim 1.
Khoshnevisan may not explicitly teach wherein, based on that a TCI state field is not included in downlink control information (DCI) by the PDCCH or a specific time offset value related to a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is greater than or equal to a pre-configured threshold value for the repetition transmission of the PDCCH, the PDSCH is received based on a plurality of TCI states associated with the first CORESET. However, Yi teaches wherein, based on that a TCI state field is not included in downlink control information (DCI) by the PDCCH or a specific time offset value related to a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is greater than or equal to a pre-configured threshold value for the repetition transmission of the PDCCH, the PDSCH is received based on a plurality of TCI states associated with the first CORESET ([0181] the DCI may not include a TCI field. The wireless device may apply a TCI state of a CORESET transmitting the DCI to a first PDSCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DCI not having TCI field, taught by Yi, into the communication system, taught by Khoshnevisan, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce DCI overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yi and Khoshnevisan in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (US-20210195601), Hamidi-Sepehr (US-20210306867) in view of Zheng (WO-2021217627-A1).
As to claim 7: Khoshnevisan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, based on the first search space set configured to the first CORESET being linked with the second search space set configured to the second CORESET, for the repetition transmission of the PDCCH ([0131] base station 105-a may indicate (e.g., via a configuration sent via RRC signaling) to the UE 115-a that the PDCCH 210-a and PDCCH 210-b are linked or associated with each other or that the associated search space sets are linked or associated with each other; [0132-134] Information transmitted from the base station 105-a (e.g., DCI) may indicate the scheduling parameters for repetitions of the PDCCH 210-a and 210-b, which may occur across different TCI states), … on a transmission occasion of the second search space set ([0138] base station 105-a may transmit the search space set configuration to the UE 115-a in an RRC configuration. The base station 105-a may also transmit multiple PDCCH repetitions including, for example, PDCCH 210-a and PDCCH 210-b to the UE 115-a based on the configuration. PDCCH 210-a may be associated with a first search space set and PDCCH 210-b may be associated with a second search space set).
Khoshnevisan may not explicitly teach the PDCCH is transmitted based on the plurality of TCI states according to single frequency network (SFN) scheme on a transmission occasion of the first search space set. However, Zheng teaches the PDCCH is transmitted based on the plurality of TCI states according to single frequency network (SFN) scheme on a transmission occasion of the first search space set ([0034] in a single frequency network (SFN) multi-TRP scenario, different TRPs may transmit the same PDSCH and/or PDCCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SFN, taught by Zheng , into the communication system, taught by Khoshnevisan, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve spatial diversity. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Zheng in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Khoshnevisan may not explicitly teach and the PDCCH is transmitted based on the single TCI state. However, Hamidi teaches and the PDCCH is transmitted based on the single TCI state (claim 8 wherein the CORESET is associated with a single active TCI state of the configured plurality of TCI states).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement CORESET associated with TCI states, taught by Hamidi, into the communication system, taught by Khoshnevisan, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve robustness. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Hamidi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights