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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 19:
Applicant submitted that Wei et al. (US 20230062788) does not disclose or suggest that “the PDCCH configuration corresponds to a target carrier combination group.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Wei ([0092-0093]) discloses that a base station configures different RNTIs for distinguishing whether scheduling is for one carrier or N carriers. The UE determines the RNTI through blind-detecting the PDCCH, and determines whether scheduling is on N carriers. i.e., PDCCH comprises configuration (e.g. RNTI) to schedule a group of carriers, and the RNTI is obtained through blind-detecting the PDCCH.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-15, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US 20230062788).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a method for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) detection (blindly detects the DCI on the PDCCH channel; [0093]), comprising:
performing, by a terminal device, blind detection based on a PDCCH configuration sent by a network device, to obtain target downlink control information (DCI) (second communication node transmits the DCI to the first communication node through a PDCCH channel, and the first communication node determines the RNTI through blind-detecting the PDCCH, thereby determining whether the DCI schedules the PDSCH on one carrier or the PDSCHs on N carriers; [0092]),
wherein the PDCCH configuration corresponds to a target carrier combination group, the target carrier combination group comprises one or more carrier combinations (second communication node configures different RNTIs for distinguishing whether the DCI schedules the PDSCH on one carrier or the PDSCHs on N carriers. The second communication node transmits the DCI to the first communication node through a PDCCH channel, and the first communication node determines the RNTI through blind-detecting the PDCCH, thereby determining whether the DCI schedules the PDSCH on one carrier or the PDSCHs on N carriers. In a case where the first communication node blindly detects the DCI over the PDCCH channel through RNTI2, the DCI schedules the PDSCHs on carrier A and carrier B, and one PDSCH is scheduled on each carrier; [0092-0093]), and
each carrier combination comprises one or more carriers; and the target DCI is for scheduling a carrier combination in the target carrier combination group (In a case where the CIF index indicated by the CIF in the DCI is mapped to N carriers, the DCI schedules PDSCHs on the N carriers; [0095]).
Regarding claim 2, Wei discloses wherein the target carrier combination group is configured by the network device to the terminal device through a high-level signaling; or the target carrier combination group is determined by the terminal device based on a preset combination rule (the total number of carriers schedulable to the DCI refers to the total number of carriers being able to be scheduled by the DCI configured by RRC signaling; [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Wei discloses wherein in case that the carrier combination comprises a plurality of carriers, each carrier in the carrier combination has a same subcarrier spacing, or each carrier in the carrier combination is configured with a same physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) group, or each carrier in the carrier combination has a same subcarrier spacing and is configured with a same PUCCH group (in a case where carrier 1 is one NR carrier and carrier 2 is another NR carrier, the base station configures carrier 1 and carrier 2 in a same PUCCH group; [0171]).
Regarding claim 4, Wei discloses wherein the target DCI includes carrier indication information, wherein the carrier indication information is for indicating the target carrier combination group, or the carrier indication information is for indicating a target carrier combination in the target carrier combination group (the CIF index may establish a mapping relationship with one or more carriers, that is, the mapping relationship is established between the CIF index and each carrier currently scheduled by the DCI; [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Wei discloses wherein the carrier indication information is determined through a carrier indicator field (CIF) in the target DCI; or the carrier indication information is determined through a target indication field in the target DCI, wherein the target indication field and the CIF are different information fields in the target DCI; or the carrier indication information is determined through the CIF and the target indication field jointly (in a case where the CIF index indicated by the CIF is mapped to N carriers, the DCI is used for scheduling PDSCHs on the N carriers; [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 2.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20230062788) in view of Takeda et al. (US 20210314993).
Regarding claim 6, Wei does not expressly disclose performing, based on the PDCCH configuration, alignment processing on all DCI formats in the PDCCH configuration; or performing, based on the PDCCH configuration, alignment processing on DCI formats for a same carrier combination in the PDCCH configuration.
In an analogous art, Takeda discloses performing, based on the PDCCH configuration, alignment processing on all DCI formats in the PDCCH configuration; or performing, based on the PDCCH configuration, alignment processing on DCI formats for a same carrier combination in the PDCCH configuration (For the joint-component carrier DCI, zeros may be assumed as the most significant bit (MSB) and least significant bit (LSB) so that the size of the joint-component carrier DCI is aligned with the size of the DCI for the component carrier 420 associated with the search space 425 the joint-component carrier DCI is mapped on. For the joint-component carrier DCI, DCI bits may be appended as MSB/LSB so that the size of the joint-component carrier DCI is aligned with the size of the DCI for the component carrier 420 associated with the search space 425 the joint-component carrier DCI is mapped on; [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Takeda into the system of Wei in order to improving multi-component carrier scheduling procedures (Takeda; [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20230062788) in view of Wang et al. (US 20240063990).
Regarding claim 7, Wei does not expressly disclose determining a PDCCH detection capability corresponding to the target carrier combination group.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses determining a PDCCH detection capability corresponding to the target carrier combination group (For the PDCCH blind detection capability, when DC is NR-DC, PDCCH blind detection capabilities of the MCG and the SCG may be separately reported. The network device may separately configure a quantity of PDCCH blind detections for the MCG and the SCG, and ensure that a sum of the two is less than a reporting capability of the terminal device; [0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Wang into the system of Wei in order to effectively support inter-RAT communication mechanism, and increase a capacity of a communication system (Wang; [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wei and Wang, particularly Wang discloses wherein the PDCCH detection capability is a minimum between a maximum capability corresponding to the target carrier combination group and a total capability corresponding to a target parameter set, wherein the target parameter set is a parameter set of a scheduling carrier corresponding to the target carrier combination group (the blind detection capability of the first communication apparatus may include one or more of the following: a maximum quantity of PDCCH candidates for blind detection in one slot, a maximum quantity of non-overlapping CCEs for blind detection in one slot, a maximum quantity of PDCCH candidates for blind detection in one combination (X, Y), a maximum quantity of non-overlapping CCEs for blind detection in one combination (X, Y), and a control information size quantity; [0319]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Wang into the system of Wei in order to effectively support inter-RAT communication mechanism, and increase a capacity of a communication system (Wang; [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wei and Wang, particularly Wang discloses wherein the PDCCH detection capability comprises a maximum number of candidate PDCCHs monitored by the terminal device and/or a maximum number of non-overlapped control channel elements (CCEs) for channel estimation (For the PDCCH blind detection capability, the PDCCH blind detection capability of the terminal device may include one or more of the following: a maximum quantity of PDCCH candidates of the terminal device for blind detection in one slot, a maximum quantity of non-overlapping CCEs of the terminal device for blind detection in one slot, a maximum quantity of PDCCH candidates of the terminal device for blind detection in one combination (X, Y), and a maximum quantity of non-overlapping CCEs of the terminal device for blind detection in one combination (X, Y); [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Wang into the system of Wei in order to effectively support inter-RAT communication mechanism, and increase a capacity of a communication system (Wang; [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, would comprise a combination of elements which is not taught by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 20200367145), “Obtaining access configuration information of the target network slice from network configuration information.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OUSSAMA ROUDANI whose telephone number is (571)272-4727. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, UN C CHO can be reached at (571) 272 7919. 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.
/OUSSAMA ROUDANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights