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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Fu et al. for the "METHOD AND DEVICE TO RECEIVE PHYSICAL DOWNLINK CONTROL CHANNEL" filed 08/06/2024 has been examined. This application. This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/KR2023/002293, International Filing Date: 02/16/2023, and claims foreign priority to 202210151703.9, filed 02/18/2022 in China. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 8, 13, 15 recite the limitation “positions of REs” on lines 4. The “REs” should be spelled out the first time introduced into the claims. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 1, 8, 13, 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13 recite the limitation “second information related to the PDCCH” on lines 7. The term "second information related to the PDCCH” are not defined by the claims, does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what constitutes such “second information related to the PDCCH” are or what is involved in determining the second information related to the PDCCH comprises. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 4, 9, 14 recite the feature “mapping relationship is related to the number of the REs occupied by the second reference signal in the PDCCH indicated in the second information” is unclear because it is not defined how the mapping relationship is related to the number of the REs. The claims attempt to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
Invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the
manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
8. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US#12,341,609) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (US#11,533,156).
Regarding claims 1, 8, the references disclose a method and device for receiving and transmitting data & control information in wireless networks, according to the essential features of the claim. Kim et al. (US#12,341,609) discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (see Figs. 8-10; Col. 2, lines 34-44 for the UE/BS operation), the method comprising: receiving first information indicating a number of ports for a first reference signal and positions of REs occupied by the first reference signal (Fig. 7; Col. 36, lines 17-32: number of ports in LTE CRS (nrofCRS-Ports) and Col. 36; lines 33-61: the NR base station may notify the NR terminal of configuration information for the CRS pattern for the LTE carrier through higher layer signaling); and receiving a PDCCH based on at least one of the first information or second information related to the PDCCH, wherein REs occupied by a second reference signal in the PDCCH do not overlap with the REs occupied by the first reference signal (Col. 38, line 66 to Col. 39, line 43: when an RE to which a PDCCH DMRS is mapped and transmitted overlaps an RE configured as a rate matching resource, it is assumed that the corresponding PDCCH DMRS is punctured and monitoring of the corresponding PDCCH can be performed; and Col. 39, line 44 to Col. 40, line 7: the location of the corresponding PDCCH DMRS is changed).
Althought, Kim reference does not disclose expressly the “first information indicating a number of ports for a first reference signal”. However, it is well-known in the field that the CRS pattern parameter LTE-CRS-ToMatchAround included in the CRS data (Kim et al.: Col. 34, lines 42-57: information about the number of CRS ports). In the same field of endeavor, Khoshnevisan et al. (US#11,533,156) teaches in Fig. 6 a block diagram illustrated an example of a wireless communications system that enables DMRS modifications, in which the UE receives a first message scheduling a first transmission, and receives a second message scheduling a second transmission. The first transmission is associated with a first demodulation reference signal (DMRS), and the second transmission is associated with a second DMRS. The method further includes determining, by the UE, whether one or more cell specific reference signal (CRS) patterns overlaps with the first DMRS or the second DMRS, and modifying, by the UE, at least one DMRS symbol of the first DMRS or at least one DMRS symbol of the second DMRS responsive to determining that at least one CRS pattern of the one or more CRS patterns overlaps with at least one DMRS symbol of the first DMRS or the second DMRS (Col. 24, line 51 to Col. 25, line 2 and Col. 25, line 44-67; Col. 26, line 52 to Col. 28, line 42).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Khoshnevisan’s DMRS and CRS collision avoidance procedures into Kim’s methods and systems for transmitting a PDCCH with the motivation being to provide a method and device for receiving a PDCCH in wireless networks.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Khoshnevisan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Kim et al. (US#12,341,609) further teaches wherein the second information includes a number or positions of the REs occupied by the second RS in the PDCCH (Col. 38, line 66 to Col. 39, line 5).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Khoshnevisan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Kim et al. (US#12,341,609) further teaches wherein the first information is received from a base station, and wherein the second information is received from a base station or is preset (Fig. 7; Col. 36, lines 36-61 and Col. 38, line 66 to Col. 39, line 5).
Regarding claims 6, 11, Kim in view of Khoshnevisan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Kim et al. (US#12,341,609) further teaches wherein includes third information related to a control channel element aggregation level (CCE AL) of a PDCCH candidate (Col. 25, line 65 to Col. 26, line 59).
Regarding claims 7, 12, Kim in view of Khoshnevisan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Kim et al. (US#12,341,609) further teaches wherein receiving fourth information indicating that a second OFDM symbol which does not overlap with the REs occupied by the first reference signal uses the same PDCCH receiving configuration as a first OFDM symbol which overlaps with the REs occupied by the first reference signal; and according to the fourth information, receiving the PDCCH in the second OFDM symbol based on at least one of the first information and the second information related to the PDCCH (Col. 39, line 44 to Col. 40, line 2).
Regarding claims 13, 15, they are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims 1, 8 examined above. Therefore, claims 13, 15 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 1, 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 paragraph as set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receiving a PDCCH based on at least one of the first information or second information related to the PDCCH further comprises: receiving the PDCCH based on a mapping relationship between the number of ports for the first reference signal and the positions of the REs occupied by the first reference signal and positions of the REs occupied by the second reference signal in the PDCCH, wherein the mapping relationship is related to the number of the REs occupied by the second reference signal in the PDCCH indicated in the second information; wherein control information in the PDCCH occupies REs that do not overlap with the REs occupied by the second reference signal and the REs occupied by the first reference signal, wherein the second information includes a ratio of power of the REs occupied by the second reference signal in the PDCCH to power of the REs occupied by the control information in the PDCCH, and wherein the ratio is determined based on the first information or is received from a base station, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Levitsky et al. (US#11,784,747) shows configuration signaling of DMRS and transmission mode
The Baldemair et al. (US#11,212,150) shows DMRS in LTE/NR coexistence.
The Kim et al. (US#11,785,617) shows method and device for transmitting and receiving PDCCH in wireless communication system.
The Shin et al. (US#11,490,378) shows method for transmitting/receiving narrowband PDCCH in narrowband supporting wireless communication system, and device therefor.
The Shao (US#11,848,808) information processing method & communications apparatus.
The Muruganathan et al. (US#2022/0070901) PDSCH resource mapping for M-TRP.
The Park et al. (US#2025/0015950) shows method and device for transmitting/receiving NR PDCCH in wireless communication system.
12. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
07/14/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights