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 .
Status
The present application claims priority to PCT Pat. Application PCT/CN2021/135145 filed December 2, 2021.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17, 20-23, 25 and 30-31 are currently pending.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 30 and 31 have been amended by preliminary amendment dated May 30, 2024.
Claims 6-7, 10, 13, 18-19, 24, and 26-29 have been cancelled by preliminary amendment dated May 30, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 30, 2024, March 7, 2025, and June 6, 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17, 21-23, 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Pat. Pub. CN 112153743 to Jun Liu (hereinafter Liu) in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #104-e eMeeting, January 25-February 5, 2021, R1-2101726 (hereinafter R1)
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches A method for detecting downlink control information (DCI), (Liu para. [0037], page 6, and Fig. 2 illustrate a blind detection method for detecting DCI) performed by a terminal, comprising:
detecting and receiving at least one DCI according to a priority order of multiple DCIs within a time unit; (Liu paras. [0037]-[0046] page 6-7, teaches multiple DCIs received in a “target unit” which can be a time slot, wherein the “priority order” is according to a reliability standard being met:
PNG
media_image1.png
387
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above in the English translation, Liu teaches DCI number threshold determined “according to capability” within a “time slot” for DCI detection.)
[[wherein the multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals;]]
and
in response to determining that a number of DCIs detected and received within the time unit reaches a maximum DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit, stopping detecting DCI within the time unit. (Liu teaches in paras. [0065]-[0077] and “ Step 36: When the number of DCIs detected in the first detection unit reaches the first quantity threshold, stop the blind detection operation in the terminal in the first detection unit... Step 303: Check whether the number of DCIs that meet the reliability requirements reaches the number of threshold corresponding to the monitoring opportunities within the first 3 symbols”)
Liu does NOT teach wherein the multiple DCIs at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals; (R1 teaches on page 15/20 beginning on line 7, introducing “non-fallback DCIs in the common search space definition” for simultaneously scheduling MBS. R1, at line 10, teaches “Observation 13” R1 teaches “in section 2.5.4, we established that the DCI used to schedule group-common PDSCH should be of a new format (DCI 1_3) and aligned with the non-fallback DCI 1_1, to avoid additional blind decodes. We note that the introduction of MBS means that the PTM transmission will occupy space in the CORESET where there would typically be other DCI.” Thus, a new format DCI 1_3 which is used to schedule “group-common PDSCH” and at line 21-22 R1 teaches “For the MBS fallback DCI, we suggest to follow legacy and have it in the common search space” which is mapped to “MBS of multiple terminals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1 to teach multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling MBS of multiple terminals. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of R1 teaches The method according to claim 1, as stated.
Liu does NOT teach wherein the maximum DCI number is a maximum unicast DCI number;
However, in the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the maximum DCI number is a maximum unicast DCI number; (R1 teaches on page 17, Observation 14 and line 1-5, “it is desirable to align the DCI used for MBS with the ones used for unicast. For maximum flexibility, the DCI for MBS should functionally follow DCI 1_1. For the sake of discussion, we refer to this new DCI as DCI 1_3. Since DCI 1_3 is common to all UEs in a group scheduling, the size of this DCI must be common to all UEs. Therefore, the following procedure should be followed to align DCI 1_3 size with DCI 1_1.)
Liu does NOT teach detecting and receiving the at least one DCI according to the priority order of multiple DCIs within the time unit comprises:
detecting and receiving at least one DCI in a group common search space according to a first priority order within the time unit;
wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting DCI for MBS;
in response to determining that a number of DCIs detected and received in the group common search space is less than the maximum unicast DCI number, detecting and receiving at least one DCI in a UE search space (USS) according to a second priority order;
wherein the USS is a search space that corresponds to the terminal and is used for transmitting unicast DCI.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches detecting and receiving at least one DCI in a group common search space according to a first priority order within the time unit; (R1 page 16 lines 1-8, teaches detecting DCIs in a group common search space according to a first priority order using a “monitoring priority of search space set for multicast” that is the same as Rel-15/16 CSS or USS)
wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting DCI for MBS; (R1 teaches on page 16 in section 2.5.4 BD for PDCCH candidates, which is blind decoding of DCIs, that a group common search )
in response to determining that a number of DCIs detected and received in the group common search space is less than the maximum unicast DCI number, detecting and receiving corresponding DCI in a UE search space (USS) according to a second priority order; (R1 page 16 Proposal 16 “The priority of search space for multicast is higher than UE specific search space but lower than the existing common search space defined in R15/16” which teaches a direct ordering between the CSS and the USS. Further, R1 teaches on page 16, line 6 “The monitoring priority is used at least for PDCCH overbooking case”.
wherein the USS is a search space that corresponds to the terminal and is used for transmitting unicast DCI. (R1 teaches on page 15, line 16 -22 that “if the UE is configured with
N
PDCCH candidates in the USS when not configured with MBS, then it should be configured with
(
N
-
K
)
PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors
K
PDCCH candidates in MBS. With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup
N
PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of
N
PDCCH unicast candidates.”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of R1 teaches the method according to claim 1.
Liu does NOT teach wherein the maximum DCI number is a maximum unicast DCI number;
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches that wherein the maximum DCI number is a maximum unicast DCI number; (R1 page 17, lines 1-5 teaches that “it is desirable to align the DCI used for MBS with the ones used for unicast” so that the maximum number unicast DCIs can be used for MBS).
R1 further teaches detecting and receiving the at least one DCI according to the priority order of multiple DCIs within the time unit comprises: detecting and receiving at least one DCI in a UE search space (USS) according to a second priority order within the time unit; (R1 teaches in proposal 16, page 16, lines 10 -16 that the second priority occurs when the UE specific search space exceeds the space necessary for MBS: “the priority of search space for multicast is higher than UE specific search space but lower than the existing common search space.”)
R1 further teaches wherein the USS is a search space that corresponds to the terminal and is used for transmitting unicast DCI; (R1 teaches on page 15, lines 16-23 teaches that a UE can be configured with UE specific search space that has
N
PDCCH candidates in the USS when not configured with MBS, then it should be configured with
(
N
-
K
)
PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors
K
PDCCH candidates in MBS. With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup
N
PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of
N
PDCCH unicast candidates.” Therefore, the USS is used for unicast in such a configuration.)
and
R1 further teaches in response to determining that a number of DCIs detected and received in the USS is less than the maximum unicast DCI number, detecting and receiving at least one DCI in a group common search space according to a first priority order; (R1 on page 15, lines 15 et seq. teaches that a new DCI 1_3 is aligned with non-fallback DCI 1_1 and candidates should be “borrowed” from the USS. Further for MBS fallback DCI, “we suggest to follow legacy and have it located in the common search space.”) wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting DCI for MBS. (R1 page 15, lines Observation 13, lines 18-22 teaches “With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup
N
PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of
N
PDCCH unicast candidates. For the MBS fallback DCI, we suggest to follow legacy and have it located in the common search space”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 4, Liu does NOT teach The method according to claim 2, wherein the first priority order indicates at least one of:
a priority order of group common search space identities;
a priority order of group-radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) values;
a priority order of terminal services;
or
a priority order of control resource set identities.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches a priority order of group common search space identities. (R1 page 16, lines 9-13 teaches “Since the priority of each search space is according to the search space ID, we believe it is not possible to have the same priority for two search spaces with different ID. Since group-common PDCCH needs to be transmitted in those CCE which are available to all UEs in MBS group, we think it is reasonable to set the priority of group-common PDCCH search space to be higher than that for existing UE specific search space, but lower than that of existing common search space”. Therefore, PDCCH group common search space identities have a higher priority than other common search space identities.) Examiner notes that the use of “at least one of” negates requiring a teaching for each alternative element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 5, Liu does NOT teach The method according to claim 2, wherein the second priority order indicates at least one of:
a priority order of search space identities;
or
a priority order of control resource set identities.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches a wherein the second priority order indicates at least one of:
a priority order of search space identities. (R1 teaches on page 16, lines 9-13 that the “priority of group-common PDCCH search space to be higher than that for existing UE specific search space, but lower than that of existing common search space” which is a first priority to existing common search space, a second priority to group-common PDCCH search space and a lower priority for existing UE specific search space, since “it is not possible to have the same priority for two search spaces with different ID.”) Examiner notes that the use of “at least one of” negates requiring a teaching for each alternative element.
Regarding claim 8, Liu does NOT teach The method according to claim 2, wherein a number of unicast downlink DCIs detected and received by the terminal comprises a number of DCIs for the MBS detected and received in the group common search space.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein a number of unicast downlink DCIs detected and received by the terminal comprises a number of DCIs for the MBS detected and received in the group common search space. (R1 teaches on page 15, Observation 13 reusing a common search space for scheduling group common PDCCH of PTM-1, which results in “N PDCCH unicast candidates” of which K candidates are available to configured for MBS, wherein N-K are available for unicast in the USS. Therefore, the number of unicast downlink DCIs is the number of MBS DCIs detected in group common search space.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of R1 teaches The method according to claim 1 as previously stated.
Liu does not specifically teach determining the maximum DCI number according to a terminal capability; wherein the terminal capability indicates a second DCI number, the second DCI number indicates a number of DCIs for the MBS that the terminal supports to detect at most within the time unit.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches determining the maximum DCI number according to a terminal capability, wherein the terminal capability indicates a second DCI number, the second DCI number indicates a number of DCIs for the MBS that the terminal supports to detect at most within the time unit. (R1 teaches in Observation 13 determining the number of DCI candidates for MBS in the CORESET based on the UE configuration/capability on page 15, line 13- 21: “We note that the introduction of MBS means that the PTM transmission will occupy space in the CORESET where there would typically be other DCI. In our view, the candidates should be “borrowed” from the USS. That is to say, if the UE is configured with
N
PDCCH candidates in the USS when not configured with MBS, then it should be configured with
(
N
-
K
)
PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors
K
PDCCH candidates in MBS. With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup
N
PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of
N
PDCCH unicast candidates.” Therefore the maximum number of DCI candidates is N and K is the number of MBS DCI candidates limited by N-K. Examiner notes that R1 teaches that the MBS “will occupy space in the CORESET” which is a time span within the a slot and part of the “time unit” as claimed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 11, Liu does NOT teach wherein detecting and receiving the at least one DCI according to the priority order of multiple DCIs within the time unit comprises:
detecting and receiving DCI for the MBS in a group common search space within the time unit according to a third priority order; wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting the DCI for MBS;
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches detecting and receiving DCI for the MBS in a group common search space within the time unit according to a third priority order; wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting the DCI for MBS. (R1 teaches on page 15 in Observation 13 that common search space can be reused for scheduling group common PDCCH of PTM-1 (which is a form of MBS) according to the priority wherein the priority is given on page 16, lines 9-13 in that the “priority of group-common PDCCH search space to be higher than that for existing UE specific search space, but lower than that of existing common search space” which gives different priorities to existing common search space, including another priority to group-common PDCCH search space and another priority for existing UE specific search space – providing three priorities: 1. existing common search space, 2. group-common PDCCH search space and 3. existing UE specific search space.)
R1 further teaches in response to determining that the number of DCIs detected and received within the time unit reaches the maximum DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit, stopping detecting DCI within the time unit comprises:
in response to determining that a number of DCIs for MBS detected and received within the time unit reaches the second DCI number indicated by the terminal capability, stopping detecting DCI in the group common search space within the time unit. (R1 teaches in Observation 13 determining the number of DCI candidates for MBS in the CORESET based on the UE configuration/capability on page 15, line 13- 21: “We note that the introduction of MBS means that the PTM transmission will occupy space in the CORESET where there would typically be other DCI. In our view, the candidates should be “borrowed” from the USS. That is to say, if the UE is configured with
N
PDCCH candidates in the USS when not configured with MBS, then it should be configured with
(
N
-
K
)
PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors
K
PDCCH candidates in MBS. With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup
N
PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of
N
PDCCH unicast candidates.” Therefore the maximum number of DCI candidates is N and K is the number of MBS DCI candidates limited by N-K which is a UE capability.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 12, Liu does NOT teach The method according to claim 11, wherein the third priority order indicates at least one of: a priority order of group common search space identities; a priority order of group-radio network temporary identifier values; a priority order of terminal services; or a priority order of control resource set identities.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the third priority order indicates at least one of: a priority order of group common search space identities. (R1 page 16, lines 9-13 teaches “Since the priority of each search space is according to the search space ID, we believe it is not possible to have the same priority for two search spaces with different ID. Since group-common PDCCH needs to be transmitted in those CCE which are available to all UEs in MBS group, we think it is reasonable to set the priority of group-common PDCCH search space to be higher than that for existing UE specific search space, but lower than that of existing common search space”. Therefore, PDCCH group common search space identities have a higher priority than other common search space identities. Examiner notes that the “OR” within the claim negates mandating a teaching of each alternative element of claim 12.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 14, Liu does NOT teach The method according to claim 9, wherein a sum of the second DCI number indicated by the terminal capability and a number of unicast DCIs detected and received by the terminal within the time unit is less than or equal to a maximum unicast DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein a sum of the second DCI number indicated by the terminal capability and a number of unicast DCIs detected and received by the terminal within the time unit is less than or equal to a maximum unicast DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit. (R1 teaches on page 15, Observation 13 determining the number of DCI candidates for MBS in the CORESET - which includes a time unit- based on the UE configuration/capability and on page 15, line 13- 21: “We note that the introduction of MBS means that the PTM transmission will occupy space in the CORESET where there would typically be other DCI. In our view, the candidates should be “borrowed” from the USS. That is to say, if the UE is configured with
N
PDCCH candidates in the USS when not configured with MBS, then it should be configured with
(
N
-
K
)
PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors
K
PDCCH candidates in MBS. With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup
N
PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of
N
PDCCH unicast candidates.” Therefore the maximum number of DCI candidates is N and K is the number of MBS DCI candidates limited by N-K which is a UE capability.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 15, Liu combined with R1 teaches A method for sending downlink control information (DCI), performed by a base station, (Liu teaches a method for sending DCI performed by a base station Fig. 1 network device 12)
comprising:
sending multiple DCIs to a terminal within a time unit; (Liu teaches in paras. [0037]-[0046] page 6-7, teaches multiple DCIs received in a “target unit” which can be a time slot, wherein the “priority order” is according to a reliability standard being met:
PNG
media_image1.png
387
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above in the English translation, Liu teaches DCI number threshold determined “according to capability” within a “time slot” for DCI detection.)
[[wherein the multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals;]]
and
determining at least one DCI detected and received by the terminal from the multiple DCIs within the time unit according to a priority order of the multiple DCIs and a maximum DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit. (Liu teaches in paras. [0065]-[0077] “ Step 36: When the number of DCIs detected in the first detection unit reaches the first quantity threshold, stop the blind detection operation in the terminal in the first detection unit... Step 303: Check whether the number of DCIs that meet the reliability requirements reaches the number of threshold corresponding to the monitoring opportunities within the first 3 symbols”)
Liu does NOT teach wherein the multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals; (R1 teaches on page 15/20 beginning on line 7, introducing “non-fallback DCIs in the common search space definition”. R1, at line 10, teaches “Observation 13” R1 teaches “in section 2.5.4, we established that the DCI used to schedule group-common PDSCH should be of a new format (DCI 1_3) and aligned with the non-fallback DCI 1_1, to avoid additional blind decodes. We note that the introduction of MBS means that the PTM transmission will occupy space in the CORESET where there would typically be other DCI.” Thus, a new format DCI 1_3 which is used to schedule “group-common PDSCH” and at line 21-22 R1 teaches “For the MBS fallback DCI, we suggest to follow legacy and have it in the common search space” which is mapped to “MBS of multiple terminals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1 to teach multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling MBS of multiple terminals. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of R1 teaches The method according to claim 15.
Liu does NOT teach wherein the maximum DCI number is a maximum unicast DCI number;
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the maximum DCI number is a maximum unicast DCI number. (R1 teaches on page 17, Observation 14 and line 1-5, “it is desirable to align the DCI used for MBS with the ones used for unicast. For maximum flexibility, the DCI for MBS should functionally follow DCI 1_1. For the sake of discussion, we refer to this new DCI as DCI 1_3. Since DCI 1_3 is common to all UEs in a group scheduling, the size of this DCI must be common to all UEs. Therefore, the following procedure should be followed to align DCI 1_3 size with DCI 1_1.)
Liu also does NOT teach
determining the at least one DCI detected and received by the terminal from the multiple DCIs within the time unit according to the priority order of multiple DCIs and the maximum DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit comprises:
in response to determining that a first number of DCIs sent by the base station in a group common search space is greater than or equal to the maximum unicast DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs of the maximum unicast DCI number sent by the base station in the group common search space according to a first priority order within the time unit; wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting DCI for the MBS;
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches in response to determining that a first number of DCIs sent by the base station in a group common search space is greater than or equal to the maximum unicast DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs of the maximum unicast DCI number sent by the base station in the group common search space according to a first priority order within the time unit; wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting DCI for the MBS; (R1 teaches on page 15, lines 15 et seq. teaches that a new DCI 1_3 is aligned with non-fallback DCI 1_1 and candidates should be “borrowed” from the USS. Further for MBS fallback DCI, “we suggest to follow legacy and have it located in the common search space.”) wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting DCI for MBS. (R1 page 15, lines Observation 13, lines 18-22 teaches “With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup N PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of N PDCCH unicast candidates. For the MBS fallback DCI, we suggest to follow legacy and have it located in the common search space”.)
Liu also does NOT teach in response to determining that the first number is less than the maximum unicast DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs of the first number sent by the base station in the group common search space according to the first priority order and detects and receives DCIs of a second number sent by the base station in a UE search space (USS) according to a second priority order within the time unit; wherein the USS is a search space that corresponds to the terminal and is used for transmitting unicast DCI, and a sum of the first number and the second number is equal to the maximum unicast DCI number.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches in response to determining that the first number is less than the maximum unicast DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs of the first number sent by the base station in the group common search space according to the first priority order and detects and receives DCIs of a second number sent by the base station in a UE search space (USS) according to a second priority order within the time unit; wherein the USS is a search space that corresponds to the terminal and is used for transmitting unicast DCI, and a sum of the first number and the second number is equal to the maximum unicast DCI number. (R1 teaches on page 15, lines 16-23 teaches that a UE can be configured with UE specific search space that has N PDCCH candidates in the USS when not configured with MBS, then it should be configured with (N-K) PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors K PDCCH candidates in MBS. With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup N PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of N PDCCH unicast candidates.” Examiner notes that the N number of candidates is a total according to capability, and the number K is the number of candidates in MBS. Therefore, the “sum of the first number and the second number is N, and is equal to the maximum unicast DCI number. )
Regarding claim 17, Liu does NOT teach wherein the maximum DCI number is a maximum unicast DCI number;
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the maximum DCI number is a maximum unicast DCI number. (R1 teaches on page 15, lines 16-23 teaches that “a UE can be configured with UE specific search space that has N PDCCH candidates in the USS when not configured with MBS” as stated above.)
Liu does NOT teach determining the at least one DCI detected and received by the terminal from the multiple DCIs within the time unit according to the priority order of multiple DCIs and the maximum DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit comprises:
in response to determining that a third number of DCIs sent by the base station in a UE search space (USS) is greater than or equal to the maximum unicast DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs of the maximum unicast DCI number sent by the base station in the USS according to a second priority order within the time unit;
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches in response to determining that a third number of DCIs sent by the base station in a UE search space (USS) is greater than or equal to the maximum unicast DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs of the maximum unicast DCI number sent by the base station in the USS according to a second priority order within the time unit; (R1 teaches R1 on page 15, lines 15 et seq. teaches that a new DCI 1_3 is aligned with non-fallback DCI 1_1 and candidates should be “borrowed” from the USS. Further for MBS fallback DCI, “we suggest to follow legacy and have it located in the common search space.” Further, R1 page 15, lines Observation 13, lines 18-22 teaches “With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup N PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of N PDCCH unicast candidates. For the MBS fallback DCI, we suggest to follow legacy and have it located in the common search space”. R1 also teaches as repeated above, “then it should be configured with (N-K) PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors K PDCCH candidates in MBS.” Therefore, when the number of MBS DCI exceeds the number of unicast DCI, the priority applies to limit as provided in R1, page 16, lines 9-15, which teaches “Since group-common PDCCH needs to be transmitted in those CCE which are available to all UEs in MBS group, we think it is reasonable to set the priority of group-common PDCCH search space to be higher than that for existing UE specific search space, but lower than that of existing common search space”. Therefore, the limit on DCIs is the maximum in the USS for the terminal, and “N-K” wherein K is larger than N would be limited by N.)
Liu also does NOT teach wherein the USS is a search space that corresponds to the terminal and is used for transmitting unicast DCI; in response to determining that the third number is less than the maximum unicast DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs of the third number sent by the base station in the USS according to the second priority order and detects and receives DCIs of a fourth number sent by the base station in a group common search space according to a first priority order within the time unit; wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting DCI for the MBS, and a sum of the third number and the fourth number is equal to the maximum unicast DCI number.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the USS is a search space that corresponds to the terminal and is used for transmitting unicast DCI; (R1 teaches unicast in USS search space in Observation 13, discussed infra, on page 15) in response to determining that the third number is less than the maximum unicast DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs of the third number sent by the base station in the USS according to the second priority order and detects and receives DCIs of a fourth number sent by the base station in a group common search space according to a first priority order within the time unit; wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting DCI for the MBS, and a sum of the third number and the fourth number is equal to the maximum unicast DCI number. (R1 teaches on page 15, lines 15 et seq. teaches that a new DCI 1_3 is aligned with non-fallback DCI 1_1 and candidates should be “borrowed” from the USS. Further, for MBS fallback DCI, “we suggest to follow legacy and have it located in the common search space.” R1 page 15, lines Observation 13, lines 18-22 teaches “With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup N PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of N PDCCH unicast candidates. For the MBS fallback DCI, we suggest to follow legacy and have it located in the common search space”. R1 also teaches as repeated above, “then it should be configured with (N-K) PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors K PDCCH candidates in MBS.” Thus, the maximum unicast DCI number N is the sum of the DCI for MBS plus the DCI for UE specific over the USS mapped to the third and fourth numbers in the claim according to the priorities provided in R1, page 16, lines 9-15, which teaches “Since group-common PDCCH needs to be transmitted in those CCE which are available to all UEs in MBS group, we think it is reasonable to set the priority of group-common PDCCH search space to be higher than that for existing UE specific search space, but lower than that of existing common search space”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1 to teach multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling MBS of multiple terminals. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 21, Liu does NOT teach The method according to claim 16, wherein the DCI for the MBS sent to the terminal in the group common search space is regarded as unicast downlink DCI.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the DCI for the MBS sent to the terminal in the group common search space is regarded as unicast downlink DCI. (R1 teaches in Observation 13 on page 15 that the DCI for MBS the MBS for DCI sent to the terminal in group common search space “should be ‘borrowed” from the USS. Examiner interprets the borrowing as “regarded as unicast downlink DCI.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1 to teach multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling MBS of multiple terminals. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 22, R1 in view of Liu teaches The method according to claim 15 as stated.
Liu does NOT teach wherein the maximum DCI number is a second DCI number determined according to a terminal capability of the terminal, and the second DCI number indicates a number of DCIs for the MBS that the terminal supports to detect at most within the time unit; determining the at least one DCI detected and received by the terminal from the multiple DCIs within the time unit according to the priority order of multiple DCIs and the maximum DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit comprises:
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the maximum DCI number is a second DCI number determined according to a terminal capability of the terminal, and the second DCI number indicates a number of DCIs for the MBS that the terminal supports to detect at most within the time unit; determining the at least one DCI detected and received by the terminal from the multiple DCIs within the time unit according to the priority order of multiple DCIs and the maximum DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit comprises: (R1 teaches in Observation 13 on page 15 that a maximum DCI for a terminal capability is N which is also the maximum number of DCIs for the MBS that a terminal can support in a CORESET.)
Liu also does NOT teach in response to determining that a fifth number of DCIs for the MBS sent by the base station in a group common search space is greater than the second DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs for the MBS of the second DCI number sent by the base station in the group common search space according to a third priority order within the time unit; wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting the DCI for the MBS; in response to determining that the fifth number is less than or equal to the second DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs for the MBS of the fifth number sent by the base station in the group common search space according to the third priority order within the time unit.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches in response to determining that a fifth number of DCIs for the MBS sent by the base station in a group common search space is greater than the second DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs for the MBS of the second DCI number sent by the base station in the group common search space according to a third priority order within the time unit; wherein the group common search space is a common search space for at least transmitting the DCI for the MBS; in response to determining that the fifth number is less than or equal to the second DCI number, determining that the terminal detects and receives DCIs for the MBS of the fifth number sent by the base station in the group common search space according to the third priority order within the time unit. (R1 teaches on page 15, Observation 13, that the common search space and the UE specific search space contain a total of N unicast candidate DCI. The number of MBS DCI is mapped to a “fifth number” and it is greater than N or less than N, and the fifth number of DCIs for MBS is K, then according to the Agreements, monitoring priorities of the search space set apply. For example, R1 page 15 Section 2.5.3. provides “Option 1: The monitoring priority of search space set for multicast is the same as existing Rel-15/16 CSS; Option 2: The monitoring priority of search space set for multicast is the same as existing Rel-15/16 USS” Further, when an overbooking occurs, such as the fifth number is greater than the maximum, “the monitoring priority is used”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1 to teach multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling MBS of multiple terminals. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 23, Liu in view of R1 teaches The method according to claim 22 as stated. Liu does NOT teach wherein the third priority order is used to indicate at least one of:
a priority order of group common search space identities;
a priority order of group-radio network temporary identifier values;
a priority order of terminal services;
or
a priority order of control resource set identities.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the third priority order is used to indicate at least one of:
a priority order of group common search space identities. (R1 page 16, lines 9-13 teaches “Since the priority of each search space is according to the search space ID, we believe it is not possible to have the same priority for two search spaces with different ID. Since group-common PDCCH needs to be transmitted in those CCE which are available to all UEs in MBS group, we think it is reasonable to set the priority of group-common PDCCH search space to be higher than that for existing UE specific search space, but lower than that of existing common search space”. Therefore, PDCCH group common search space identities have a higher priority than other common search space identities. Examiner notes that the “OR” within the claim negates mandating a teaching of each alternative element of claim 12.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 25,Liu does NOT teach The method according to claim 22, wherein a sum of the maximum group common DCI number indicated by the terminal capability and a number of unicast DCIs sent by the base station to the terminal within the time unit is less than or equal to a maximum unicast DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein a sum of the maximum group common DCI number indicated by the terminal capability and a number of unicast DCIs sent by the base station to the terminal within the time unit is less than or equal to a maximum unicast DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit. (R1 teaches in Observation 13 determining the number of DCI candidates for MBS in the CORESET based on the UE configuration/capability on page 15, line 13- 21: “We note that the introduction of MBS means that the PTM transmission will occupy space in the CORESET where there would typically be other DCI. In our view, the candidates should be “borrowed” from the USS. That is to say, if the UE is configured with
N
PDCCH candidates in the USS when not configured with MBS, then it should be configured with
(
N
-
K
)
PDCCH candidates in the USS if at the same time it monitors
K
PDCCH candidates in MBS. With the non-fallback DCIs for MBS and unicast both present in the common search space, it is still possible for the network to setup
N
PDCCH candidates for unicast, since the USS and CSS still contain a total of
N
PDCCH unicast candidates.” Therefore the maximum number of DCI candidates is N and K is the number of MBS DCI candidates limited by N-K. Examiner notes that R1 teaches that the MBS “will occupy space in the CORESET” which is a time span within the a slot and part of the “time unit” as claimed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 30, Liu in view of R1 teaches A device for detecting downlink control information (Liu Fig. 9 diagram of a terminal), comprising:
a processor; (Liu Fig. 9, processor 903)
and a memory (Liu Fig. 9, memory 904) for storing processor-executable instructions; wherein the processor is configured to perform:
detecting and receiving at least one DCI according to a priority order of multiple DCIs within a time unit; (Liu paras. [0037]-[0046] page 6-7, teaches multiple DCIs received in a “target unit” which can be a time slot, wherein the “priority order” is according to a reliability standard being met:
PNG
media_image1.png
387
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above in the English translation, Liu teaches DCI number threshold determined “according to capability” within a “time slot” for DCI detection.)
[[wherein the multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals;]]
and
Liu teaches in response to determining that a number of DCIs detected and received within the time unit reaches a maximum DCI number that the terminal supports to detect within the time unit, stopping detecting DCI within the time unit. (Liu teaches in paras. [0065]-[0077] and “ Step 36: When the number of DCIs detected in the first detection unit reaches the first quantity threshold, stop the blind detection operation in the terminal in the first detection unit... Step 303: Check whether the number of DCIs that meet the reliability requirements reaches the number of threshold corresponding to the monitoring opportunities within the first 3 symbols”)
Liu does NOT teach wherein the multiple DCIs at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals.
In the same field of endeavor, R1 teaches wherein the multiple DCIs at least comprise group common DCI for simultaneously scheduling multicast broadcast service (MBS) of multiple terminals; (R1 teaches on page 15/20 beginning on line 7, introducing “non-fallback DCIs in the common search space definition”. R1, at line 10, teaches “Observation 13” R1 teaches “in section 2.5.4, we established that the DCI used to schedule group-common PDSCH should be of a new format (DCI 1_3) and aligned with the non-fallback DCI 1_1, to avoid additional blind decodes. We note that the introduction of MBS means that the PTM transmission will occupy space in the CORESET where there would typically be other DCI.” Thus, a new format DCI 1_3 which is used to schedule “group-common PDSCH” and at line 21-22 R1 teaches “For the MBS fallback DCI, we suggest to follow legacy and have it in the common search space” which is mapped to “MBS of multiple terminals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Liu with R1 to teach multiple DCIs comprise at least one DCI for simultaneously scheduling MBS of multiple terminals. Each of R1 and Liu are in the field of wireless communications. Each of R1 and Liu address blind decoding in the field of multiple DCI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined Liu with R1 in order to address UEs with lower capability during blind detection, as taught on page 16, lines 19-23.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of R1 further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20240406844 to Athul Prasad et al. (hereinafter Prasad).
Regarding claim 20, Liu does NOT teach sending a radio resource control (RRC) signaling to the terminal; wherein the RRC signaling indicates to the terminal at least one of the first priority order or the second priority order configured by the base station.
In the same field of endeavor, Prasad teaches sending a radio resource control (RRC) signaling to the terminal; wherein the RRC signaling indicates to the terminal at least one of the first priority order or the second priority order configured by the base station. (Prasad paras. [0045] –[0046] teaches in para. [0044]-[0048] that for MBS a gNB “can optionally configure a UE with a RRC configuration message” for Search space sets including MBS related SS set parameters. Prasad further teaches in para. [0044] that the search spaces have different “monitoring priorities” because a priority rule is needed when search spaces set for multicast have a lower priority than type-3 CSS and a configurable priority (above/lower/within) when compared to USS.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Prasad with Liu to teach sending a RRC signaling to the terminal. Each of Liu and Prasad are in the field of wireless communications and blind decoding. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Liu with Prasad in order to enable a UE to know that a configured CSS is for unicast or for multicast as taught in para. [0049] of Prasad.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of R1 further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20210250918 to Le Liu et al. (hereinafter Le Liu).
Regarding claim 31, Liu in view of R1 teaches A device for sending downlink control information, (Liu Fig. 1 base station/network device 12) comprising:
However neither Liu nor R1 illustrate a processor and memory, and therefore at least Liu does NOT teach that that base station includes a processor; and a memory for storing processor-executable instructions; wherein the processor is configured to perform the method for sending downlink control information according to claims 15.
In the same field of endeavor of blind decoding, Le Liu teaches a processor; (Le Liu Fig. 3, processor 312) and a memory for storing processor-executable instructions; (Le Liu, Fig. 3, memory 316) wherein the processor is configured to perform the method for sending downlink control information according to claims 15. (Le Liu includes a DCI Generating Component 352 within processor 312).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Le Liu with Liu and R1 to teach using a base processor to perform the method for sending downlink control information according to claim 15. Each of Le Liu, Liu and R1 are in the field of DCI blind decoding. Le Liu is further directed to generating DCI for multicast/broadcast communications as taught in Le Liu paras. [0058]-[0059]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Le Liu with Liu in order to reuse DCI formats for multicasting based on modified DCI format 1_1 for unicast as taught in Le Liu para. [0026].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes “Monitoring Downlink Control Information Supporting Multiple Services”, US Pat. Pub. 202000337029 to Yunjung Yi et al., filed April 15, 2020.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights