DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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. 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s submission received on 08/08/2024.
2. Claims 1 – 11, 13 - 14 and 19 – 25 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 21 – 25 are new. Claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 14 have been amended.
4. Claims 12 and 15 – 18 have been cancelled.
Foreign Priority/Domestic benefit
There is no claim to foreign priority according to the application data sheet and filing receipt.
Domestic benefit is claimed with regards to international application PCT/IB2023/051092 filed 02/08/2023 which claims benefit to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 63/308,312 filed February 9, 2022.
Oath/Declaration
1. The applicant’s oath/declaration filed on 08/14/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement filed on 11/04/2024 is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
1. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 08/08/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objection(s)
Regarding claim 5, an objection is made to the use of the word "if" in line 5. This word constitutes optional language that does not further limit this claim. Specifically, it is not known whether the limitations following this word are necessary or optional. “If” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found because the step or function only occurs “if” the answer is positive. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “if” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Objection to the specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
In this application the abstract is not on a separate sheet of paper, appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1 – 4, 10 – 11, 14 and 21 - 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (WO 2021/109501) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2024/0357526 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MA discloses: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication [see figure 12 in view of the first paragraph of the description of figure 12 on page 33], comprising:
at least one memory; and [see figure 12 in view of the first paragraph of the description of figure 12 on page 33]
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to [see figure 12 in view of the first paragraph of the description of figure 12 on page 33]:
receive, from a base station, first control signaling indicating a set of durations associated with skipping of monitoring for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); [see page 17:
“A gNB can send a RRC signaling to UE, the RRC signaling can configure Tb available PDCCH skipping periods, and each PDCCH skipping period can be related with an index.”. The RRC (first signaling) is used to indicate a set of PDCCH skipping period (“Tb”)]
receive, from the base station, second control signaling indicating to activate a first subset of durations of the set of durations; [see page 17: “In some embodiments, MAC CE signaling may select Tm available PDCCH skipping periods from Tb available PDCCH skipping periods configured by RRC.”. The second signal (MAC-CE) is used to further select a subset (“Tm”) of skipping period of “Tb” skipping periods initially indicated by the RRC]
Ma does not disclose: receive, from the base station, third control signaling indicating for the UE to terminate monitoring a set of PDCCH candidates associated with the PDCCH, according to a set of downlink control information (DCI) formats for a serving cell, during a first time duration associated with the first subset of durations; and
terminate monitoring the set of PDCCH candidates associated with the PDCCH during the first time duration associated with the first subset of durations based at least in part on the received third control signaling, however, Ma discloses “DCI”(third control signaling), on page 27 in view of different DCI formats for skipping of PDCCH monitoring within a given cell.
[ NOTE: The above limitation not accounted for by Ma is read in view of ¶ 0039 (second bullet) of this application (18/837, 114, specification submitted on 08/08/224).]
To account for the remaining limitations not taught by Ma which is:
“…for the UE to terminate monitoring a set of PDCCH candidates associated with the PDCCH, according to a set of downlink control information (DCI) formats for a serving cell, during a first time duration associated with the first subset of durations; and
terminate monitoring the set of PDCCH candidates associated with the PDCCH during the first time duration associated with the first subset of durations based at least in part on the received third control signaling.” the reference of Zhou is relied on, see ¶ 0300, which states: “…The wireless device may receive a DCI (e.g., 1.sup.st DCI in FIG. 30B with DCI format 2_0). The DCI may indicate a SSS group switching for the cell, e.g., when a value of the SSS group switching flag field in the DCI format 2_0 is 1. In response to receiving the DCI, the wireless device may start monitoring PDCCH according to a second SSS group (e.g., 2.sup.nd SSS group or a SSS with group index 1) and stops monitoring PDCCH on the first SSS group (or the SSS with group index 0 for the serving cell.” [support is found on page 19 of the provisional application 63/294,738 of Zhou]
In other words, a subset of durations was already accounted for in the primary reference of Ma over which the PDCCH is to be monitored. The DCI format (2_0) of Zhou will trigger the UE to halt such measuring during a duration in the subset of durations, since it is done abruptly in order to switch over to monitor PDCCH in another PDCCH/SSS group. Claim 1 uses the term “formats”. Such difference is also seen in the reference of Zhou, see ¶ 0381/293 and would be easily conceivable to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement different DCI formats. [For different DCI formats in view of stop monitoring, see also the reference of Lai et al. (US 2024/0073816 A1), ¶ 0091 and Figure 3 in view of ¶ 0082.]
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 system of Ma in view of Zhou. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for power saving operation [¶ 0306 of Zhou].
Claims 10, 14 and 21 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 2, Ma further discloses: The apparatus UE of claim 1, wherein the second control signaling is a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE). [see page 17: “In some embodiments, MAC CE signaling may select Tm available PDCCH skipping periods from Tb available PDCCH skipping periods configured by RRC.”. The second signal (MAC-CE) is used to further select a subset (“Tm”) of skipping period of “Tb” skipping periods initially indicated by the RRC]
Claims 11 and 22 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim 3, Ma further discloses: The apparatus UE of claim 2, wherein the MAC-CE is scheduled via the PDCCH. [see page 17: “In some embodiments, MAC CE signaling may select Tm available PDCCH skipping periods from Tb available PDCCH skipping periods configured by RRC.”. The second signal (MAC-CE) is used to further select a subset (“Tm”) of skipping period of “Tb” skipping periods initially indicated by the RRC]
Claim 23 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim 4, Zhou further discloses: The apparatus UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and the receiver are is further configured to cause the apparatus UE to: determine whether the first subset of durations is valid for the third control signaling; and in response to determining the first subset of durations is valid, terminate monitoring the set of PDCCH candidates during the first time duration. [see ¶ 0300, which states: “…The wireless device may receive a DCI (e.g., 1.sup.st DCI in FIG. 30B with DCI format 2_0). The DCI may indicate a SSS group switching for the cell, e.g., when a value of the SSS group switching flag field in the DCI format 2_0 is 1. In response to receiving the DCI, the wireless device may start monitoring PDCCH according to a second SSS group (e.g., 2.sup.nd SSS group or a SSS with group index 1) and stops monitoring PDCCH on the first SSS group (or the SSS with group index 0 for the serving cell.”]
Claim 24 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 9, 13, 19 – 20 and 25 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights