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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims and argued these amendments. Examiner agrees that the previous rejection did not account for all these amendments. However, newly introduced art does teach these limitations. Please see the rejections that follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 7, 8, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20, claim 1 recites ‘…a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate…’ and then ‘the first PDCCH candidate’ That is there is lack of antecedent basis for ‘the first PDCCH’. Is this referring to the PDCCH candidate or something else? Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 13-14, claim 13 recites ‘…the same first CCE set…’ Claim 1 only mentions a same CCE set. So it is unclear if these are the same or different sets. Claim 14 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 13 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12, claim 4 recites ‘…a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate…’ and then ‘the first PDCCH candidate’ That is there is lack of antecedent basis for ‘the first PDCCH’. Is this referring to the PDCCH candidate or something else? Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 4 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 9-10, claim 9 recites ‘…the same first CCE set…’ Claim 4 only mentions a same CCE set. So it is unclear if these are the same or different sets. Claim 10 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 9 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites ‘…the same first CCE set…’ Claim 4 only mentions a same CCE set. So it is unclear if these are the same or different sets.
Regarding claims 7-8, claim 7 recites ‘…a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate…’ and then ‘the first PDCCH candidate’ and ‘the second PDCCH candidate’. There is lack of antecedent basis for the first and the second and it is unclear if these are referring to a PDCCH or something else. Claim 8 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 21-22, claim 21 recites ‘…a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate…’ and then ‘the first PDCCH candidate’ and ‘the second PDCCH candidate’. There is lack of antecedent basis for the first and the second and it is unclear if these are referring to a PDCCH or something else. Claim 22 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 21 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Please review all of your claims.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2023/0033461) and further in view of Yang (2021/0352673) and further in view of Lin (2020/0169991).
Regarding claim 1, Khoshnevisan discloses a method comprising:
obtaining first configuration information based on a first condition, (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. a first configuration))
wherein the first configuration information comprises information indicating a first terminal device to monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate based on a span (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. multiple configurations; a second configuration after a first configuration))
and comprises second configuration information of the first PDCCH candidate and a second PDCCH candidate, (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. multiple configurations; a second configuration after a first configuration))
wherein the first PDCCH candidate is for individual transmission, and wherein the second PDCCH candidate is in linked PDCCH candidates for repetition transmission; and (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; overlapping independent PDCCH candidates, overlapping linked PDCCH candidates or a combination)
sending the first configuration information to the first terminal device. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 106; base station transmits control signaling with configurations (including first configuration) to the UE)
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size. However, Yang does disclose wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size. (See Yang para. 104; PDCCH candidates may be configured to not satisfy one or more conditions including CCE, scrambling ID, DCI size, CORESET, etc.; para. 106; BS may identify the configuration based upon control channel resource candidate); see also fig. 3) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size of Yang with the motivation being to allow for prioritization of certain blind-detection candidates and further ensure the UE has the information necessary to perform detection on multiple candidates that may not share the exact same characteristics and further to allow for better operation in a mTRP environment where the UE does not have to guess what to do.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a span other than a first span in the slot. However, Lin does disclose wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a span other than a first span in the slot. (See Lin para. 46; a slot has multiple spans) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a span other than a first span in the slot of Lin with the motivation being for improved flexibility and further for power savings by allowing more efficient scheduling which allows UEs to sleep sooner and further to enhance multiplexing with services being multiplexed in the same slot which improves usage of limited wireless resources.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2023/0033461) and further in view of Yang (2021/0352673) and further in view of Lin (2020/0169991) and further in view of R1-210xxxx (3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #106-e “Discussion Summary for mTRP PDCCH Reliability Enhancements” Qualcomm – 27 Aug 2021).
Regarding claim 13, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang in view of Lin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate; and (See Khoshnevisan para. 97; base station may transmit PDCCH candidates (e.g. it is generated before transmission) and identifies the correct parameters to put in the PDCCH)
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate simultaneously have the same first time-frequency resource, the same first scrambling sequence, the same first control resource set, or the same first DCI payload size. However, R1-210xxxx does disclose identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate simultaneously have the same first time-frequency resource, the same first scrambling sequence, the same first control resource set, or the same first DCI payload size. (See R1-210xxxx pg. 10; FL Proposal 3; linked PDCCH candidate uses same CCE, DCI size, scrambling, CORESET as individual PDCCH candidate) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate simultaneously have the same first time-frequency resource, the same first scrambling sequence, the same first control resource set, or the same first DCI payload size of R1-210xxxx with the motivation being to increase throughput due to resource congestion and further to avoid increasing the number of blind decodes and further to allow UEs with less capability to utilize the network efficiently from a battery and throughput/delay perspective.
4. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2023/0033461) and further in view of Yang (2021/0352673) and further in view of Lin (2020/0169991) and further in view of Salah (2020/0351681).
Regarding claim 17, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang in view of Lin discloses the method of claim 1. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein before obtaining the first configuration information, the method further comprises identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in the second span other than the first span. However, Salah does disclose wherein before obtaining the first configuration information, the method further comprises identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in the second span other than the first span. (See Salah fig. 2, 3, para. 25-26; multiple monitoring occasions within one span other than other spans) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein before obtaining the first configuration information, the method further comprises identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in the second span other than the first span of Salah with the motivation being to ensure the correct configuration is implemented based upon the optimal configuration and further to maximize limited wireless resources by increasing network coverage, capacity, allow for continuity, and reliability.
Regarding claim 18, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang in view of Lin in view of Salah discloses the method of claim 17, wherein identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in the span in the slot other than the first span in the slot comprises identifying a start orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol location of the span in which the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located. (See Salah fig. 2, 3, para. 25-26; multiple monitoring occasions within one span other than other spans; para. 27; different start-symbol indices of spans) The motivation being to ensure the correct configuration is implemented based upon the optimal configuration and further to maximize limited wireless resources by increasing network coverage, capacity, allow for continuity, and reliability and further to save battery power by telling UE where to look instead of having it search everywhere which wastes resources.
Regarding claim 19, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang in view of Lin in view of Salah discloses the method of claim 17, wherein identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in the span in the slot other than the first span in the slot comprises identifying an end orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol location of the second span in which the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located. (See Salah fig. 2, 3, para. 25-26; multiple monitoring occasions within one span other than other spans; para. 27; different start-symbol indices of spans and a duration (e.g. together identify an end)) The motivation being to ensure the correct configuration is implemented based upon the optimal configuration and further to maximize limited wireless resources by increasing network coverage, capacity, allow for continuity, and reliability and further to save battery power by telling UE where to look instead of having it search everywhere which wastes resources.
Regarding claim 20, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang in view of Lin in view of Salah discloses the method of claim 17, wherein identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in the span in the slot other than the first span in the slot comprises identifying a sequence number of the span in which the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located. (See Salah para. 27; different start-symbol indices of spans and a duration; figure 2, 3 labels the spans 1, 2, 3; para. 26; first span begins for which b(1)=1 (e.g. denoting a sequence of spans)) The motivation being to ensure the correct configuration is implemented based upon the optimal configuration and further to maximize limited wireless resources by increasing network coverage, capacity, allow for continuity, and reliability and further to save battery power by telling UE where to look instead of having it search everywhere which wastes resources.
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.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2023/0033461) and further in view of Yang (2021/0352673) and further in view of Lin (2020/0169991).
Regarding claim 4, Khoshnevisan discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to obtain first configuration information based on a first condition, (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. a first configuration); base station has a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory))
wherein the first configuration information comprises information indicating a first terminal device to monitor a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate based on a span and (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. multiple configurations; a second configuration after a first configuration))
comprises second configuration information of the first PDCCH candidate and a second PDCCH candidate, (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. multiple configurations; a second configuration after a first configuration))
wherein the first PDCCH candidate is for individual transmission, and wherein the second PDCCH candidate is in linked PDCCH candidates for repetition transmission; and (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; overlapping independent PDCCH candidates, overlapping linked PDCCH candidates or a combination)
a transceiver coupled to the processor and configured to send the first configuration information to the first terminal device. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 106; base station transmits control signaling with configurations (including first configuration) to the UE; para. 45; base station has a transceiver)
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size. However, Yang does disclose wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size. (See Yang para. 104; PDCCH candidates may be configured to not satisfy one or more conditions including CCE, scrambling ID, DCI size, CORESET, etc.; para. 106; BS may identify the configuration based upon control channel resource candidate); see also fig. 3) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size of Yang with the motivation being to allow for prioritization of certain blind-detection candidates and further ensure the UE has the information necessary to perform detection on multiple candidates that may not share the exact same characteristics and further to allow for better operation in a mTRP environment where the UE does not have to guess what to do.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a span other than a first span in the slot. However, Lin does disclose wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a span other than a first span in the slot. (See Lin para. 46; a slot has multiple spans) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a span other than a first span in the slot of Lin with the motivation being for improved flexibility and further for power savings by allowing more efficient scheduling which allows UEs to sleep sooner and further to enhance multiplexing with services being multiplexed in the same slot which improves usage of limited wireless resources.
Regarding claim 11, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang in view of Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to configure that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet one or more of the same first CCE set, the same first scrambling sequence, the same first control resource set, or the same first DCI payload size regardless of whether other remaining conditions are met. (See Yang para. 104; PDCCH candidates may be configured to not satisfy one or more conditions including CCE, scrambling ID, DCI size, CORESET, etc.; para. 106; BS may identify the configuration based upon control channel resource candidate); see also fig. 3) The motivation being to allow for prioritization of certain blind-detection candidates and further ensure the UE has the information necessary to perform detection on multiple candidates that may not share the exact same characteristics and further to allow for better operation in a mTRP environment where the UE does not have to guess what to do.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2023/0033461) and further in view of Yang (2021/0352673) and further in view of Lin (2020/0169991) and further in view of R1-210xxxx (3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #106-e “Discussion Summary for mTRP PDCCH Reliability Enhancements” Qualcomm – 27 Aug 2021).
Regarding claim 9, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang in view of Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate; and (See Khoshnevisan para. 97; base station may transmit PDCCH candidates (e.g. it is generated before transmission) and identifies the correct parameters to put in the PDCCH)
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate simultaneously have the same first time-frequency resource, the same first scrambling sequence, the same first control resource set, or the same first DCI payload size. However, R1-210xxxx does disclose identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate simultaneously have the same first time-frequency resource, the same first scrambling sequence, the same first control resource set, or the same first DCI payload size. (See R1-210xxxx pg. 10; FL Proposal 3; linked PDCCH candidate uses same CCE, DCI size, scrambling, CORESET as individual PDCCH candidate) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate simultaneously have the same first time-frequency resource, the same first scrambling sequence, the same first control resource set, or the same first DCI payload size of R1-210xxxx with the motivation being to increase throughput due to resource congestion and further to avoid increasing the number of blind decodes and further to allow UEs with less capability to utilize the network efficiently from a battery and throughput/delay perspective.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2023/0033461) and further in view of Yang (2021/0352673) and further in view of Lin (2020/0169991) and further in view of Takeda (2022/0110140).
Regarding claim 12, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang in view of Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 4. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein before obtaining the first configuration information, the method further comprises identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in a secondary cell (Scell). However, Takeda does disclose wherein before obtaining the first configuration information, the method further comprises identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in a secondary cell (Scell). (See Takeda para. 127,132; configuration is created before it is sent; configuration is for search space for SCell; para. 122; PDCCH candidates for SCell) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan in view of Liu in view of Lin to include the teaching of wherein before obtaining the first configuration information, the method further comprises identifying whether the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are in a secondary cell (Scell) of Takeda with the motivation being to properly configure the secondary cell which increases throughput and reduces delay and further to ensure the correct configuration is implemented based upon the cell and further to maximize limited wireless resources by increasing network coverage, capacity, and allow for continuity.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2023/0033461) and further in view of Yang (2021/0352673) and further in view of Lin (2020/0169991).
Regarding claim 7, Khoshnevisan discloses an apparatus comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive first configuration information from a network device, (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. a first configuration); para. 144 UE with transceiver)
wherein the first configuration information comprises information indicating the apparatus to monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate based on a span (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE (e.g. a first terminal device) configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH (e.g. overlapping at least two in order to be overlapping (e.g. a first candidate and a second candidate)); para. 90; threshold is per span which is per number of consecutive symbols in a slot (e.g. on a span in a slot)
and comprises second configuration information of the first PDCCH candidate and a second PDCCH candidate, (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. multiple configurations; a second configuration after a first configuration))
wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in the same span, (See Khoshnevisan para. 142, 143; same time frequency resource including span)
wherein the first PDCCH candidate is for individual transmission, and wherein the second PDCCH candidate is in linked PDCCH candidates for repetition transmission; and (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; overlapping independent PDCCH candidates, overlapping linked PDCCH candidates or a combination)
a processor coupled to the transceiver (See Khoshnevisan para. 110, fig. 5; processor with transmitter and receiver (e.g. transceiver))
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size. However, Yang does disclose wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size. (See Yang para. 104; PDCCH candidates may be configured to not satisfy one or more conditions including CCE, scrambling ID, DCI size, CORESET, etc.; para. 106; BS may identify the configuration based upon control channel resource candidate); see also fig. 3) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size of Yang with the motivation being to allow for prioritization of certain blind-detection candidates and further ensure the UE has the information necessary to perform detection on multiple candidates that may not share the exact same characteristics and further to allow for better operation in a mTRP environment where the UE does not have to guess what to do.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a second span other than a first span in the slot. However, Lin does disclose wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a second span other than a first span in the slot. (See Lin para. 46; a slot has multiple spans) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a second span other than a first span in the slot of Lin with the motivation being for improved flexibility and further for power savings by allowing more efficient scheduling which allows UEs to sleep sooner and further to enhance multiplexing with services being multiplexed in the same slot which improves usage of limited wireless resources.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose configured to perform monitoring separately on the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate. However, Pan does disclose configured to perform monitoring separately on the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate. (See Pan para. 62; perform decoding (e.g. monitoring) individually (e.g. separately) on candidates; see also para. 59; monitoring a number of PDCCH candidates) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of configured to perform monitoring separately on the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate of Pan with the motivation being for improved flexibility and further for power savings by allowing more efficient scheduling which allows UEs to sleep sooner and further to enhance multiplexing with services being multiplexed in the same slot which improves usage of limited wireless resources and further to support different candidate configurations and further to preserve scheduling flexibility.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2023/0033461) and further in view of Yang (2021/0352673) and further in view of Lin (2020/0169991).
Regarding claim 21, Khoshnevisan discloses a method comprising:
receiving first configuration information from a network device, (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. a first configuration); para. 144 UE with transceiver)
wherein the first configuration information comprises information indicating a terminal device to monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate based on a span (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE (e.g. a first terminal device) configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH (e.g. overlapping at least two in order to be overlapping (e.g. a first candidate and a second candidate)); para. 90; threshold is per span which is per number of consecutive symbols in a slot (e.g. on a span in a slot)
and comprises second configuration information of the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate, (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; UE configured with a threshold number of overlapping PDCCH candidates which is changed based upon overlapping scenarios such as overlapping independent PDCCH vs overlapping linked PDCCH candidates (e.g. first condition is independent PDCCH); para. 106, fig. 4; base station transmits control signaling (e.g. the configuration is determined by the base station before transmitting (e.g. obtaining)) that indicates one of the configurations (e.g. multiple configurations; a second configuration after a first configuration))
wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in the same span, (See Khoshnevisan para. 142, 143; same time frequency resource including span)
wherein the first PDCCH candidate is for individual transmission, and wherein the second PDCCH candidate is in linked PDCCH candidates for repetition transmission; and (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; overlapping independent PDCCH candidates, overlapping linked PDCCH candidates or a combination)
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size. However, Yang does disclose wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size. (See Yang para. 104; PDCCH candidates may be configured to not satisfy one or more conditions including CCE, scrambling ID, DCI size, CORESET, etc.; para. 106; BS may identify the configuration based upon control channel resource candidate); see also fig. 3) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the first condition is that the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate do not meet at least one of a same control channel element (CCE) set, a same first scrambling sequence, a same first control resource set, or a same first downlink control information (DCI) payload size of Yang with the motivation being to allow for prioritization of certain blind-detection candidates and further ensure the UE has the information necessary to perform detection on multiple candidates that may not share the exact same characteristics and further to allow for better operation in a mTRP environment where the UE does not have to guess what to do.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a second span other than a first span in the slot. However, Lin does disclose wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a second span other than a first span in the slot. (See Lin para. 46; a slot has multiple spans) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate are located in a second span other than a first span in the slot of Lin with the motivation being for improved flexibility and further for power savings by allowing more efficient scheduling which allows UEs to sleep sooner and further to enhance multiplexing with services being multiplexed in the same slot which improves usage of limited wireless resources.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose configured to perform monitoring separately on the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate. However, Pan does disclose configured to perform monitoring separately on the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate. (See Pan para. 62; perform decoding (e.g. monitoring) individually (e.g. separately) on candidates; see also para. 59; monitoring a number of PDCCH candidates) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of configured to perform monitoring separately on the first PDCCH candidate and the second PDCCH candidate of Pan with the motivation being for improved flexibility and further for power savings by allowing more efficient scheduling which allows UEs to sleep sooner and further to enhance multiplexing with services being multiplexed in the same slot which improves usage of limited wireless resources and further to support different candidate configurations and further to preserve scheduling flexibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 14, 5, 6, 10, 8, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights