DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the continuation of a US application that is the national stage application of an international application filed on 17 Feb 2024.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 25 Nov 2024, 25 Jul 2025, and 23 Dec 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specifically, the NPLs 1 and 2 on IDS, dated 25 July 2024, were provided in the application file of the parent application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-44 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Reply finds Bi “merely describes which candidate search space sets should be monitored to receive . . . [a] PDCCH.” Reply, 9-10. Therefore, the Reply alleges Bi “does not signal how many times that a PDCCH is actually transmitted or repeated.” Id. at 9 (emphasis in original). The Examiner does not find this argument to be commensurate with the scope of claim 30. Specifically, claim 30 does not actually transmit any data. Instead, the claimed invention is directed to a configuration of data. In Bi, a device “may receive the MIB and determine the CORESET and search space for Type0-PDCCH based on MIB parameter(s) and at least one predefined table.” Bi, ¶69. Bi then uses at least some of the same MIB parameters as the described invention to define PDCCH repetitions. Bi., ¶70 (“determine PDCCH monitoring occasions from searchSpaceZero in pdcch-ConfigSIB1, included in MIB”); compare Spec., ¶100.
Bi also teaches an apparatus determining “the resource for the at least one repetition of the PDCCH transmission . . . . based on a first parameter.” Bi, ¶82. The presence of such a parameter indicates “whether . . . PDCCH repetitions are configured,” as required by the claimed invention.
Second, the Reply contends Lee also fails to teach the subject matter of cancelled claim 32 because Lee “refer[s] to signaling PDSCH repetitions, and not PDCCH repetitions for SIB1 signaling.” Reply, 10 (emphasis in original). The Examiner does not dispute Lee executes PDSCH repetitions. However, it also describes PDCCH repetitions. Lee, e.g. ¶174, 220. The paragraphs cited by the Non-final Rejection as teaching the limitation at issue do not recite “PDSCH.” As a result, without further evidence, the Office remains unpersuaded that the spare bit in the MIB used to indicate repeated transmissions in Lee is limited only to PDSCHs.
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 30, 31, 36, 37, 40, 45, 46, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi (US 20250081195) in view of Lee (US 20260052542).
Regarding claims 30, 49, and 50, Bi teaches a method, an apparatus comprising processing circuitry, and one or more baseband processors configured to perform operations comprising the method:
generating, for transmission to a user equipment (UE) (Bi, ¶57 – first apparatus is a UE), a Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH) comprising a first indication whether Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) repetitions are configured for System Information Block 1 (SIB1) signaling (Bi, ¶¶69, 128 – second apparatus transmits a MIB, via the SS/PBCH block, to first apparatus, where the MIB includes a repetition factor; Bi, ¶145 – repetition factor defines the resources for at least one repetition of a PDCCH transmission; Bi, ¶52 – second apparatus is a network device; Bi, ¶¶49, 140 – PDCCH repetitions indicates the scheduling information for PDSCH, which convey SIB1);
wherein the first indication is signaled by a bit in a Master Information Block (MIB) of the PBCH (Bi, ¶¶69-70 - parameters in MIB indicate the CORESET and search space via a predefined table; Bi, ¶81 - in table 3, an index is used to indicate the PDCCH monitoring occasions [Examiner’s note: to have 16 indices in table 3 require 3 bits in binary, as a result, each index is a 3-bit index]);
generating, for transmission to the UE, one or more PDCCHs according to the first indication, wherein the one or more PDCCHs comprise scheduling information for a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) carrying a SIB (Bi, ¶¶49, 140 – PDCCH repetitions indicates the scheduling information for PDSCH, which convey SIB1; Bi, figure 6 – in step 685, the second apparatus transmits at least one repetition of a PDCCH transmission);
generating, for transmission to the UE, the PDSCH carrying the SIB1 according on the scheduling information (Bi, ¶¶49, 87, 140 – PDSCH transmission, which carries the SIB1 message, is provided based on the scheduling information indicated in the PDCCH).
Bi does not explicitly teach “at least one of: configuring signaling for transmission to the UE according to the SIB1, or receiving signaling from the UE according to the SIB1.” Instead, Bi does not discuss what happens after the PDSCH is received. Bi, ¶52 (scheduled PDSCH is received by UE). However, Lee teaches a UE transmitting a PUSCH based on a bandwidth part indicated by SIB1. Lee, ¶126. Additionally, regarding the claimed first indication, Lee also teaches a spare bit in MIB used to indicate if repeated PDCCH transmissions are enabled. Lee, ¶¶178, 182. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to define uplink resources, as taught by Lee, using the SIB1, taught by Bi, in order to enable contention-free random access. Ibid.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Bi and Lee also teaches a second indication of a Control Resource Set (CORESET) of each of the one or more PDCCHs carrying the SIB1, and a third indication of a Search Space (SS) of each of the one or more PDCCHs carrying the SIB1. Bi, ¶¶69, 128 (MIB parameters include CORESET and search space [e.g. common search space CSS] for PDCCH repetitions); Bi, ¶¶49, 140 (PDCCH repetitions indicates the scheduling information for PDSCH, which convey SIB1).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Bi and Lee also teaches wherein the PBCH indicates that PDCCH repetitions are not configured for SIB1 (Lee, ¶182 – zero indicates no repeated transmission), and wherein generating the one or more PDCCHs for transmission comprises generating a single PDCCH for transmission, wherein the single PDCCH carries the scheduling information for the PDSCH carrying the SIB1. Lee, ¶¶222-224 and figure 10 (one PDCCH schedules one PDSCH, where the PDSCH may be an SIB1 PDSCH). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to generate a single PDCCH transmission when scheduling a PDSCH, as taught by Lee, when executing the PDCCH repetitions, taught by Bi, in order to allow reduced capability UEs to follow a configuration of the existing NR standard despite being bandwidth limited. Id. at ¶224.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Bi and Lee also teaches wherein the PBCH indicates that PDCCH repetitions are configured for SIB1 (Bi, ¶69 – second apparatus transmits a SS/PBCH block to schedule PDCCH; Bi, ¶140 –PDCCH transmission provides the corresponding SIB1), and wherein generating the one or more PDCCHs for transmission comprises generating a first PDCCH and a second PDCCH for transmission based on the first indication (Bi, ¶¶45, 53, 65 – BS generates PDCCCH transmission based on repetition factor), wherein each of the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH carries the scheduling information for the PDSCH carrying the SIB1. Bi, ¶49 (last sentence).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Bi and Lee also teaches wherein the method is performed by a base station. Bi, ¶¶42, 51, 55 (second apparatus is a network device, i.e. base station).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Bi and Lee also teaches wherein the method is performed by one or more base band processors. Bi, ¶40 (baseband integrated circuit or processor for a cellular network device).
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi (US 20250081195) in view of Lee (US 20260052542) and further in view of Hu (US 20250193894).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Bi and Lee teaches the method of claim 30, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the first indication is signaled by a bit in a Physical Layer (PHY) payload of the PBCH.” However, Hu teaches a PBCH payload indicating the repetition periodicity of PDCCHs. Hu, ¶140. And in one embodiment, 1 bit is used to indicate the periodicity. Id. at ¶142. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a bit, as taught by Hu, of the PBCH block, taught by the combination of Bi and Lee, in order to provide the UE with the periodicity of PDCCH monitoring occasions as either 20 ms or 40 ms. Id. at ¶143.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Bi and Lee teaches the method of claim 30, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the first indication is signaled by two bits in a Physical Layer (PHY) payload of the PBCH, wherein the two bits additionally indicate a number of PDCCH repetitions for SIB1 signaling.” However, Hu teaches a PBCH payload indicating the repetition periodicity of PDCCHs. Hu, ¶140. And in one embodiment, 2 bits are used to indicate the periodicity. Id. at ¶142. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use 2 bits, as taught by Hu, of the PBCH block, taught by the combination of Bi and Lee, in order to provide the UE with the periodicity of PDCCH monitoring occasions as either 10 ms, 20 ms, 40 ms, or 80 ms. Id. at ¶144.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Bi, Lee, and Hu also teaches wherein the two bits additionally indicate at least one of: whether a common Control Resource Set (CORESET) is associated with the PDCCH repetitions, whether a common Space Search (SS) is associated with the PDCCH repetitions, or at least one or a time relationship or a frequency relationship between the PDCCH repetitions. Hu, ¶139 (periodicity of repeated PDCCHs is predetermined [i.e. has a time relationship between each other in the embodiment of Hu relied upon in the obviousness rejection of claim 34]).
Claims 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi (US 20250081195) in view of Lee (US 20260052542) and further in view of Jang (US 20230345498).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Bi and Lee teaches the method of claim 30 . . . and wherein the method further comprises configuring an offset between the Search Spaces of the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH. Bi, ¶138 (offset between respective search space sets). The combination of Bi and Lee does not explicitly teach “wherein the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH have a common Control Resource Set (CORESET) and different respective Search Spaces.” However, Jang teaches a common CORESET associated with different search spaces for PDCCH repetitions. Jang, figure 10 (one CORESET for three search spaces); Jang, ¶11 (PDCCH repetition transmission based on configuration information). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a common CORESET for a plurality of search spaces, as taught by Jang, when executing the PDCCH repetitions, taught by the combination of Bi and Lee, in order to allow the UE to apply the same QCL information (e.g. beam #1) to multiple search spaces, which enables a more flexible beam management for PDCCH transmissions. Jang, ¶196.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Bi and Lee teaches the method of claim 30, and wherein the method further comprises at least one of: configuring a first offset between the CORESETs of the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH, or configuring a second offset between the Search Spaces of the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH. Bi, ¶138 (offset between respective search space sets). The combination of Bi and Lee does not explicitly teach “wherein the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH have different respective Search Spaces and different respective Control Resource Sets (CORESETs).” However, Jang teaches different CORESETs and different search spaces for PDCCH monitoring. Jang, figure 12 and ¶207 (see BWP 1205 with a common search space for CORESET #1 and user-specific search space #2 for CORESET #2). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize different CORESETs and search spaces, as taught by Jang, when executing the PDCCH repetitions, taught by the combination of Bi and Lee, in order to enable QCL prioritization for overlapping common and UE-specific configurations. Jang, ¶202.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi (US 20250081195) in view of Lee (US 20260052542) and further in view of Ma (US 20230114058).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Bi and Lee teaches the method of claim 30, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH have a common Search Space and different respective Control Resource Sets (CORESETs), wherein the method further comprises configuring an offset between the CORESETs of the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH.” However, Ma teaches PDCCH repetitions in a common search space where a time shift or offset between each PDCCH. Ma, figure 11 and ¶147 (second pattern 1150). Ma also teaches separate CORESETs within the search space set. Ma, figure 5 and ¶133 (CORESETs 535-a and 535-b). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a time shift between PDCCHs related to different CORESETs, but a common search space, as taught by Ma, when executing the PDCCH repetitions, taught by the combination of Bi and Lee, in order to enhance reliability and coverage for non-terrestrial networks. Ma, ¶¶132, 147.
Conclusion
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for using EFS or mail, but not email to authorize electronic communications). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights