DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 8/27/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/4/2026 is 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the limitation “determine a number of decoding operations for a DCI format as either two or three,” is new matter because the original disclosure does not disclose this specific limitation. The closest disclosure within the specifications note the use of performing a decoding for a DCI format for each repetition and counts [refer Specifications; paragraph 0158], however this does not provide support for the number of decoding operations for a DCI format to be specifically limited to either two or three.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,4,8,11,14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 in view of Lin et al. (US Patent No. 11,871,429).
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080
1. A method for a user equipment (UE) to receive physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs), the method comprising:
14. A method comprising:
receiving information for a first search space set and for a second search space set, wherein: the information indicates that the first search space set and the second search space are linked for repetitions of PDCCH candidates,
receiving first information for a number of N>1 search space sets, wherein, for each of the N search space sets, the first information includes: an index, wherein search space sets are indexed in an ascending order of respective indexes, a periodicity, wherein the periodicity is same for all of the N search space sets, and
the first search space set and the second search space set have a same number of PDCCH candidates for a control channel element (CCE) aggregation level, and the PDCCH candidates for the first search space set and the PDCCH candidates for the second search space set provide same downlink control information (DCI) formats;
an indication that the N search space sets are linked for receptions of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates, wherein; a PDCCH candidate is received over a number of control channel elements (CCEs) corresponding to a CCE aggregation level, and PDCCH candidates, for search space sets from the N search space sets, with same index and with same CCE aggregation level provide identical information;
determining: a first PDCCH candidate having an index for the CCE aggregation level according to the first search space set, and a second PDCCH candidate having the index for the CCE aggregation level according to the second search space set; and
determining a number of N PDCCH reception occasions for N PDDCH candidates with same index and same CCE aggregation level, respectively, according to the first information, wherein a n-th PDCCH reception occasion from the N PDCCH reception occasions is according to a n-th search space set from the N search space sets; and
receiving the first and second PDCCH candidates.
receiving N PDCCHs in the N PDCCH reception occasions.
Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 fails to further limit the PDCCH candidates for the first search space set and the PDCCH candidates for the second search space set provide same downlink control information (DCI) formats.
L1 discloses that a set of PDCCH candidates for a group of UEs to monitor can be defined in terms of a PDCCH search space set, a UE can monitor a DCI format for multicast data or control messages in any of the search space sets [column 18 lines 44-54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 for PDCCH candidates, for search space sets from the N search space sets, with same index and with same CCE aggregation level providing identical information to further limit the use of a same DCI format used for PDCCH candidates as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of the claimed invention when PDCCH candidates for multiple sets that are of the same CCE aggregation level provide the same identical information.
Regarding claims 8 and 15 of the current application, claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 substantially limits the same inventive concept. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct and are of an obvious variation, as noted with regards to the rejection of claim 1 of the current application. Therefore the same rejection and rationale apply accordingly.
Regarding claims 2,9 and 16 of the current application, claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 fails to further limit receiving the first PDCCH candidate in a first control resource set (CORESET), and the second PDCCH candidate in a second CORESET.
L1, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that a particular search space is associated with a CORESET, the CCE indexes for aggregation level corresponding PDCCH candidates of the search space set are calculated accordingly [column 18 lines 4-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 to further limit associated CORESET for search spaces as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of the claimed invention in order to determine a PDCCH assignment that includes configuration of search spaces set/CORESET [refer L1; column 17 lines 59-62].
Regarding claims 3,10 and 17 of the current application, claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 substantially limits the same inventive concept of the information indicates a first periodicity for the first search space set and a second periodicity for the second search space set, and the first periodicity and the second periodicity have a same value [claim 1; “search space sets are indexed in an ascending order of respective indexes, a periodicity, wherein the periodicity is same for all of the N search space sets”]. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct and are of an obvious variation.
Regarding claims 4,11 and 18 of the current application, claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 substantially limits the same inventive concept of the PDCCH candidates for the first search space set are received over a first number of PDCCH monitoring occasions within a first periodicity, the PDCCH candidates for the second search space set are received over a second number of PDCCH monitoring occasions within a second periodicity, and the first number of PDCCH monitoring occasions is same as the second number of PDCCH monitoring occasions [claim 1; “search space sets are indexed in an ascending order of respective indexes, a periodicity, wherein the periodicity is same for all of the N search space sets” “determine a number of N PDCCH reception occasions for N PDCCH candidates with same index and same CCE aggregation level”].
However, claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 fails to further limit a first PDCCH monitoring occasion is over different symbols than a second PDCCH monitoring occasion for a same search space set.
L1 discloses a number of PDCCH monitoring occasions in a search space set can be indicated by the number of start OFDM symbols within a slot associated with a search space set s [column 28 lines 59-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 to further limit monitoring occasions, such as the reception occasions, to be over different symbols as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of the claimed invention that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 5,12, and 19 of the current application, claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 substantially limits the same inventive concept of the PDCCH candidates for the first search space set are received over a first number of PDCCH monitoring occasions within a first periodicity, the PDCCH candidates for the second search space set are received over a second number of PDCCH monitoring occasions within a second periodicity, the first PDCCH candidate is received in a third PDCCH monitoring occasion having an index, and the second PDCCH candidate is received in a fourth PDCCH monitoring occasion having the index [claim 1; “search space sets are indexed in an ascending order of respective indexes, a periodicity, wherein the periodicity is same for all of the N search space sets” “determine a number of N PDCCH reception occasions for N PDCCH candidates with same index and same CCE aggregation level”].
However, claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 fails to further limit a first PDCCH monitoring occasion is over different symbols than a second PDCCH monitoring occasion for a same search space set.
L1 discloses a number of PDCCH monitoring occasions in a search space set can be indicated by the number of start OFDM symbols within a slot associated with a search space set s [column 28 lines 59-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 to further limit monitoring occasions, such as the reception occasions, to be over different symbols as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of the claimed invention that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 6,13 and 20 of the current application, claims 4,11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 substantially limits the same inventive concept of a slot offset for a reception of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH); the processor is further configured to determine that: the slot offset starts after an end of the first PDCCH candidate when the first PDCCH candidate ends after the second PDCCH candidate, and the slot offset starts after an end of the second PDCCH candidate when the second PDCCH candidate ends after the first PDCCH candidate; and the transceiver is further configured to receive the PDSCH based on the slot offset [claims 4,11,17; “the N PDCCH reception occasions are indexed in an ascending order of their respective start times, and the identical information includes a slot offset between a start of the PDCCH reception and one of: a reception of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH)”].
However, claims 4,11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 fails to further limit the first and second PDCCH candidates provide a DCI format; the DCI format indicates the offset.
L1 discloses that a set of PDCCH candidates for a group of UEs to monitor can be defined in terms of a PDCCH search space set, a UE can monitor a DCI format for multicast data or control messages in any of the search space sets [column 18 lines 44-54], a time offset can be indicated in a DCI format [column 26 lines 24-30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claims 4,11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 to further limit the use of a DCI format used for PDCCH candidates that comprises of an offset as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of the claimed invention that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 fails to further limit the processor is further configured to determine a number of decoding operations for a DCI format as either two or three, and the first and second PDCCH candidates provide the DCI format.
L1 discloses UE typically monitors multiple candidate locations for respective potential PDCCH receptions to decode one or more DCI formats in a slot [column 6 lines 35-38], noting that an indication of DCI-formats to monitor PDCCH candidates in the search space set, such as monitoring for DCI format_X_0, which can be a DCI format with a smallest size among DCI formats for which the UE monitors PDCCH and is carried by PDCCH in a CSS set [column 21 lines 45-50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claims 1,8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,080 to further limit the use of monitoring multiple PDCCH reception or occasions for multiple (i.e. two or three) DCI formats as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of the claimed invention that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuan et al. (US Pub. 2023/0059731) discloses that an entity can be configured with the same PDCCH candidate with the same CCE aggregation level in the same CORESET for the same DCI format of the same payload [paragraph 0149].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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 C Jiang can be reached on 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights