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 .
Specification
The specification amendment submitted on 09/23/2024 which amended the abstract has been accepted.
The specification amendment submitted on 09/23/2024 which added the cross-reference to related applications has been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 50-53 and 61-63 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 50 recites “monitoring” in line 3. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the monitoring”.
Claim 61 recites “monitoring” in line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the monitoring”.
Claims 51-53 and 62-63 are also objected since they are dependent on the objected claims set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 50-53 and 61-63 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.
Claim 50 recites “multi-cell scheduling” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “multi-cell scheduling” in claim 46. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 50 recites “a reference cell” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a reference cell” in claim 46. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 61 recites “multi-cell scheduling” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “multi-cell scheduling” in claim 56. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 61 recites “a reference cell” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a reference cell” in claim 56. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 51-53 and 62-63 are also rejected since they are dependent on the rejected claims set forth above.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 46-54 and 56-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nimbalker et al. (US 2023/0269751 A1, hereinafter “Nimbalker”).
Regarding claims 46 and 64, Nimbalker discloses An apparatus of a New Radio (NR) User Equipment (UE), the apparatus including one or more processors and a radio frequency (RF) circuitry interface to couple the one or more processors to an RF circuitry of the UE [see Fig. 2, para. 65-68; wireless device including processor 86 and radio interface 82], the one or more processors to:
detect a received downlink control information (DCI) format for multi-cell scheduling; and count the DCI format based on only a reference cell for counting the DCI format [see Fig. 8, para. 102-103, claim 13; receive scheduling from the primary cell using a PDCCH and scheduling from the secondary cell using a PDCCH, the scheduling configured to schedule a physical shared channel on the primary cell for the wireless device, the size of DCI format used for the primary cell being size-matched to the size of the DCI format used for secondary for the secondary cell; a DCI budget for the wireless device for both the primary cell and secondary cell corresponds to a total number of DCIs sizes that the wireless device is provided is shared among the primary cell and is the same as the DCI budget for one of the primary cell and secondary cell].
Regarding claims 47 and 65, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the DCI format is to correspond to a scheduling cell in response to a determination that the scheduling cell can be configured by the DCI format [see para. 82, Fig. 8, para. 102-103; the scheduling configured to schedule a physical shared channel on the primary cell for the wireless device, the size of DCI format used for the primary cell being size-matched to the size of the DCI format used for secondary for the secondary cell; see Fig. 10a, para. 131, PCell as reference scheduling cell].
Regarding claim 48, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the DCI format is configured via higher layer signaling [see para. 74, 82, 86, 113; the size of DCI format used for the primary cell is configured via higher layer signaling (RRC)].
Regarding claim 49, Nimbalker discloses wherein the higher layer signaling corresponds to a SearchSpace parameter [see para. 74, 82, 86, 129, 134-135, 141-142; the higher layer signaling (RRC) corresponds to a SearchSpace parameter].
Regarding claim 50, Nimbalker discloses wherein the one or more processors are to monitor physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates to detect a PDCCH candidate corresponding to the DCI format for multi-cell scheduling, monitoring including counting the PDCCH candidate or a number of corresponding non-overlapped control channel elements (CCEs) based on only a reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate [see para. 72-80, 129; PDCCH monitoring to detect a PDCCH candidate corresponding to the DCI format for PCell/SCell scheduling, monitoring including determining the CCEs corresponding to PDCCH candidates that a wireless device may have to monitor within a search space set, and configuring PDCCH candidates appropriately for the different search spaces on different serving cells based on one or more of the identified limits].
Regarding claim 51, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate corresponds to a scheduling cell [see para. 129, 170-184; counting the DCI sizes for scheduling sSCell and for scheduling primary cell within the same budget, and configuring PDCCH candidates appropriately for the different search spaces on different serving cells based on one or more of the identified limits].
Regarding claim 52, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate is to corresponds to the scheduling cell in response to a determination that the scheduling cell can be configured by the DCI format [see para. 72-80, 129, 170-184; see Fig. 10a, para. 131, PCell as reference scheduling cell; see Fig. 8, para. 102-103; the primary cell can be configured by the DCI format].
Regarding claim 53, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate is configured via higher layer signaling [see para. 74, 82, 86, 113; the reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate is configured via higher layer signaling (RRC)] corresponding to a SearchSpace parameter [see para. 74, 82, 86, 129, 134-135, 141-142; the higher layer signaling (RRC) corresponds to a SearchSpace parameter].
Regarding claim 54, Nimbalker discloses further including an RF front end coupled to the one or more processors [see Fig. 2, para. 65-68; RF transceiver coupled to the processor].
Regarding claim 56, Nimbalker discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions to cause one or more processors of a New Radio (NR) User Equipment (UE), upon execution of the instructions [see Fig. 2, para. 65-68; wireless device comprising memory 88 storing software 90 executed by processor 86], to perform operations including:
detecting a received downlink control information (DCI) format for multi-cell scheduling; and counting the DCI format based on only a reference cell for counting the DCI format [see Fig. 8, para. 102-103, claim 13; receive scheduling from the primary cell using a PDCCH and scheduling from the secondary cell using a PDCCH, the scheduling configured to schedule a physical shared channel on the primary cell for the wireless device, the size of DCI format used for the primary cell being size-matched to the size of the DCI format used for secondary for the secondary cell; a DCI budget for the wireless device for both the primary cell and secondary cell corresponds to a total number of DCIs sizes that the wireless device is provided is shared among the primary cell and is the same as the DCI budget for one of the primary cell and secondary cell].
Regarding claim 57, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the DCI format corresponds to a scheduling cell [see para. 82, Fig. 8, para. 102-103; the scheduling configured to schedule a physical shared channel on the primary cell for the wireless device, the size of DCI format used for the primary cell being size-matched to the size of the DCI format used for secondary for the secondary cell; see Fig. 10a, para. 131, PCell as reference scheduling cell].
Regarding claim 58, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the DCI format corresponds to the scheduling cell in response to a determination that the scheduling cell can be configured by the DCI format [see para. 82, Fig. 8, para. 102-103; the scheduling configured to schedule a physical shared channel on the primary cell for the wireless device, the size of DCI format used for the primary cell being size-matched to the size of the DCI format used for secondary for the secondary cell; see Fig. 10a, para. 131, PCell as reference scheduling cell].
Regarding claim 59, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the DCI format is configured via higher layer signaling [see para. 74, 82, 86, 113; the size of DCI format used for the primary cell is configured via higher layer signaling (RRC)].
Regarding claim 60, Nimbalker discloses wherein the higher layer signaling corresponds to a SearchSpace parameter [see para. 74, 82, 86, 129, 134-135, 141-142; the higher layer signaling (RRC) corresponds to a SearchSpace parameter].
Regarding claim 61, Nimbalker discloses the operations further including monitoring physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates to detect a PDCCH candidate corresponding to the DCI format for multi-cell scheduling, monitoring including counting the PDCCH candidate or a number of corresponding non-overlapped control channel elements (CCEs) based on only a reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate [see para. 72-80, 129; PDCCH monitoring to detect a PDCCH candidate corresponding to the DCI format for PCell/SCell scheduling, monitoring including determining the CCEs corresponding to PDCCH candidates that a wireless device may have to monitor within a search space set, and configuring PDCCH candidates appropriately for the different search spaces on different serving cells based on one or more of the identified limits].
Regarding claim 62, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate is to correspond to a scheduling cell [see para. 129, 170-184; counting the DCI sizes for scheduling sSCell and for scheduling primary cell within the same budget, and configuring PDCCH candidates appropriately for the different search spaces on different serving cells based on one or more of the identified limits] in response to a determination that the scheduling cell can be configured by the DCI format [see para. 72-80, 129, 170-184; see Fig. 10a, para. 131, PCell as reference scheduling cell; see Fig. 8, para. 102-103; the primary cell can be configured by the DCI format].
Regarding claim 63, Nimbalker discloses wherein the reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate is configured via higher layer signaling [see para. 74, 82, 86, 113; the reference cell for counting the PDCCH candidate is configured via higher layer signaling (RRC)], the higher layer signaling corresponding to a SearchSpace parameter [see para. 74, 82, 86, 129, 134-135, 141-142; the higher layer signaling (RRC) corresponds to a SearchSpace parameter].
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimbalker in view of Sun et al. (US 2024/0023128 A1, hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding claim 55, Nimbalker does not explicitly disclose one or more antenna panels.
However, Sun teaches a UE comprising an RF front end coupled to one or more antenna panels [see Fig. 2, para. 22; UE 110 comprising one or more antenna panels 230 coupled to transceiver 225].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a UE comprising an RF front end coupled to one or more antenna panels”, as taught by Sun, into the system of Nimbalker so that it would provide scheduling of control signaling on a primary cell [see Sun, para. 2].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2026/0067899 A1) discloses monitoring a PDCCH in a search space set configured for a first cell, the PDCCH including first DCI for scheduling the uplink transmission or the downlink reception in at least one among the first cell or a second cell; and performing the uplink transmission or the downlink reception in at least one among the first cell or the second cell on the basis of the first DCI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
