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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 08/21/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and herein considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/21/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 08/21/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 13, 17-19, 25-31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (U.S 2020/0404669).
For claim 1:
Seo discloses a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (see Seo, at least paragraph [0006]; wireless communication at a user equipment), comprising:
receiving a set of messages indicating a first search space for a first downlink control channel and a second search space for a second downlink control channel (see Seo, at least figure 4; [0041]; search space may be configured for the CORESET, and [0106]; the UE may receive configuration for different search space), wherein the first search space overlaps with the second search space in a same slot of a subframe (see Seo, at least paragraph [0123]; search space sets are prioritized in this manner, even though a plurality of search space sets are configured for one UE and time resources overlap between the search space sets at a time corresponding to a common multiple of the monitoring periodicities of the plurality of search space sets); and refraining from performing blind decoding in either the first search space or in the second search space in the same slot, (see Seo, at least table 4, paragraph [0020]; a priority between search space sets for PDCCH blind detection), based on a first priority of a first control resource set (CORESET) associated with the first search space and a second priority of a second CORESET the second search space (see Seo, at least paragraphs [0089]-[0090]; CORESET Priority: the highest priority may be assigned to a CORESET configured with a CSS, and if there are two or more CORESETs configured with the CSS, the priorities of the CORESETs may be further determined based on their CORESET indexes and [0106]; a specific time resource, different search space sets may overlap. In this case, for a specific search space set, the priority may be configured to be higher via predefinition or via network configuration (e.g., higher layer signaling). When the UE has to skip blind decoding for some candidates, the UE may first skip candidates belonging to a search space set having a low priority).
For claims 5 and 17:
In addition to rejection in claims 5 and 16, Seo further discloses wherein at least one message in the set of messages is a Radio Resource Control message (see Seo, at least paragraph [0293]; The UE 110 and the BS 105 may exchange RRC messages with each other through the wireless communication network and the RRC layer), wherein the at least one message indicates at least one of the first priority of the first CORESET associated with the first search space of the first downlink control channel or the second priority of the second CORESET associate with the second search space of the second downlink control channel (see Seo, at least paragraph [0090]-[0121]; CORESET may be interpreted as a variety of resource units or search space sets for a configuration of a search space and example of prioritizing CORESETs, search space sets may be prioritized implicitly/explicitly based on the indexes of the search space sets. For example, a higher priority may be assigned to a search space set having a lower index).
For claims 6 and 18:
In addition to rejection in claims 6 and 18, Seo further discloses wherein at least one message in the set of messages is a Master Information Block message (see Seo, at least paragraph [0094]; a case when the UE-common control information (e.g., cell-common control information such as system information; also see [0002]; the UE acquires system information (e.g., MIB)), wherein the at least one message indicates at least one of a first configuration associated with the first search space of the first downlink control channel or a second configuration associated with the second search space of the second downlink control channel.
For claims 7 and 19:
In addition to rejection in claims 7 and 19, Seo further discloses performing the blind decoding in the first search space of the first control and in the second search space of the second downlink control channel based on a first configuration associated with the first search space of the first downlink control channel being a same configuration as a second configuration associated with the second search space of the second downlink control channel (see Seo, at least figure 4, and paragraph [0049]-[0050]; the blind decoding among the PDCCH candidates included in the search space and [0020]; [0050]; priority between search space sets for PDCCH blind detection and the blind decoding among the PDCCH candidates included in the search space).
For claim 13:
For claim 13, claim 13 is directed to an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment, which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
For claim 25:
Seo discloses a method of wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: configuring a set of search spaces of different downlink control channels for a user equipment (UE) (see Seo, at least paragraph [0109]-[0113]; the priority may be determined based on a DCI format that the UE should monitor in each search space set and/or on a search space type), wherein each search space in the set of search spaces is configured to not overlap with any other search space in the set of search spaces in a same slot of a subframe (see Seo, at least figure 4; [0041]; search space may be configured for the CORESET, and [0106]; the UE may receive configuration for different search space and [0200]; UE may determine how many candidates in which resource pool are to be dropped (or blind-decoded) based on the number of candidates per unit resource. When a plurality of search space sets are to be monitored in the same slot); and indicating to the UE the set of search spaces of the different downlink control channels (see Seo, at least figure 4; [0041]; search space may be configured for the CORESET, and [0106]; the UE may receive configuration for different search space), wherein the first search space overlaps with the second search space in a same slot of a subframe (see Seo, at least paragraph [0123]; search space sets are prioritized in this manner, even though a plurality of search space sets are configured for one UE and time resources overlap between the search space sets at a time corresponding to a common multiple of the monitoring periodicities of the plurality of search space sets).
For claims 26 and 30:
Seo further discloses wherein indicating to the UE the set of search spaces further comprises: transmitting, to the UE, a set of configurations including a respective configuration for each search space of the set of search spaces (see Seo, at least paragraph [0110]; the priority may be determined based on a DCI format that the UE should monitor in each search space set and/or on a search space type).
For claims 27 and 31:
Seo further discloses wherein at least one of the set of configurations is transmitted via a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message (see Seo, at least paragraph [0293]; The UE 110 and the BS 105 may exchange RRC messages with each other through the wireless communication network and the RRC layer).
For claims 28 and 32:
Seo further discloses wherein at least one of the set of configurations is transmitted via a Master Information Block (MIB) message (see Seo, at least paragraph [0094]; a case when the UE-common control information (e.g., cell-common control information such as system information; also see [0002]; the UE acquires system information (e.g., MIB)).
For claim 29:
For claim 29, claim 29 is directed to an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, which has similar scope as claim 25. Therefore, claim 29 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated Seo et al. (U.S 2020/0404669) in view of Moon et al. (U.S 12,069,653).
For claims 2 and 14:
In addition to rejection in claims 2 and 14, Seo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first search space of the first downlink control channel is associated with the first CORESET and the second search space of the second downlink control channel is associated with the second CORESET.
Moon, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses what Seo-Seok fails: the first search space of the first downlink control channel is associated with the first CORESET and the second search space of the second downlink control channel is associated with the second CORESET (see Moon, at least figure 4, 9 and column 2, lines 5-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Moon. The motivation for doing this is to improve the reception performance of the PDCCH are required.
For claims 3 and 15:
In addition to rejection in claims 3 and 15, Seo-Moon further discloses wherein the first priority of the first CORESET is associated with the first search space of the first downlink control channel and the second priority of the second CORESET is associated with the second search space of the second downlink control channel is associated with the second CORESET, wherein the first priority is different from the second priority (see Seo, at least paragraph [0121]-[0122]; [0102]-[0105]; the highest priority may be assigned to a CORESET configured with a CSS, and if there are two or more CORESETs configured with the CSS, the priorities of the CORESETs may be further determined based on their CORESET indexes).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-12, 16, 20-24 would be allowable if rewritten in all independents form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome any objection claims set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior arts made or record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosures. Seok et al. (EP-4178144-A1), discloses receiving configuration information about a first control resource set (CORESET) from a base station; receiving configuration information about a second CORESET from the base station; receiving a first PDCCH transmitted on the first CORESET from the base station; and receiving a second PDCCH transmitted on the second CORESET from the base station, wherein the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH are each repeatedly transmitted from the base station.
Zhou et al. (U.S 2020/0145081), discloses assigns a priority to each of the plurality of CORESETs and/or the plurality of search spaces.
Tang et al. (U.S 2019/0260529), discloses the search spaces of the downlink control channels corresponding to the first transmission time units in the at least two first transmission time units may be different and non-overlapping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN-HUONG TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5829. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Lan-Huong Truong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit: 2464
09/17/2026
Prosecution Insights