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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's communication filed on 01/30/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 12, 14 – 16, 18, 23 – 24, 26 – 47, 49 – 57, 59 – 63 have been canceled. Claims 1 – 11, 13, 17, 19 – 22, 25, 48, 58 are currently pending in the instant application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: An acronym “CORESET” in tittle should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20, 48, and 58 are objected to because of the following informalities: acronyms “CORESET”, “PDCCH”, “RRC”, “DCI” which should be spelled out at first time. 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 1 – 11, 13, 17, 19 – 22, 25, 48, and 58 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 cited a user device for a wireless communication system, but does not cite any structure to perform any functions for a wireless communication system. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP § 2111.04. In addition, claim 1 cited “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the word "may" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 48, claim 48 cited a base station for a wireless communication system, but does not cite any structure to perform any functions for a wireless communication system. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP § 2111.04. In addition, claim 48 cited “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 58, claim 58 claimed a method for operating a wireless communication system, but does not provide any steps to perform any functions for operating a wireless communication system. Also, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e., start with “wherein” but does not require any conditions happening) will be used, then those phrases with contingent limitations will be treated as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.04. In addition, claim 58 cited “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2 – 11, 13, 17, 19 – 22, and 25 are also rejected because they directly / indirectly depend on to claim 1.
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 and 58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other even though claims 1 and 58 missing limitations “the UE is to concatenate or combine the CORESETs or the search spaces of a group, wherein a virtual CORESET or a virtual search space is defined, and wherein the UE is to stop blind decoding once a certain number of control parameters was found within the virtual search space or the virtual CORESET” as appear to claims 1, 16, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), thus claims 1 and 58 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 16, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 16, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Claims 19, 20, 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562.
Although the claims above at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the dependency and even though claim 1 of the instant application missing limitations “the UE is to concatenate or combine the CORESETs or the search spaces of a group, wherein a virtual CORESET or a virtual search space is defined, and wherein the UE is to stop blind decoding once a certain number of control parameters was found within the virtual search space or the virtual CORESET” as appear to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,562, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1 – 10, 13, 48, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) (Pub # US 2018/0227777 A1) in view of Kim (Pub # US 2022/01569641 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 58, Sun discloses a user device, UE (UE 115 in Fig. 1), for a wireless communication system (see 100 in Fig. 1),
wherein the UE is to be served by a base station (see gNB 105 in Fig. 1) and is to use one or more frequency bands for a communication with one or more entities, e.g. other UE(s) or other gNB(s) in the wireless communication system (see Fig. 1, [0043], [0060] for the gNB designated to serve the UE on the downlink and/or uplink, or desired transmission between gNBs, see [0056] for the UE utilize a larger or smaller portion of the frequency spectrum, i.e., narrow band or wide band), wherein one or more or all of the frequency bands comprise one or more CORESETs, each CORESET comprising one or more search spaces carrying control information for the UE, e.g. DCI(s) for the UE (see Fig. 3, [0049] for Coresets are designed for transmission of common physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) information and utilized to carry a slot type indicator, control format indicator (CFI) information (e.g., information that indicates a number of symbols used to carry the Coresets), other types of information (e.g., downlink control indicator (DCI) information, etc.); see [0057] for search space configured for each CORESET, see [0060] – [0063], i.e., a list of primary Coresets is provided to the UE by a serving cell, the UE then pick a primary Coreset of the neighbor cell that is close to its own monitored Coreset(s), thereby enabling the UE to utilize a relatively narrow band to monitor its own Coreset(s) and the primary Coreset of the neighbor cell),
wherein the UE is to group
some or all of the CORESETs into respective CORESET groups (see Fig. 4 – Fig. 6, [0008], [0054], [0057], [0069] – [0073] for configuring one or more Coresets for at least one of the one or more Coreset groups), or
some or all of the search spaces into respective search space groups,
wherein a CORESET group comprises some or all CORESETs within a certain time window, and wherein a search space group comprises some or all search spaces within the certain time window (see Fig. 4 – Fig. 6, [0071] for the Coreset length correspond to a number of symbols (e.g., one symbol, two symbols, etc.) within the slot that are utilized to provide the Coreset, see [0080] for each of the one or more Coreset groups provides search space), and
wherein the grouping is responsive to
one or more group the UE is configured with, each group pointing to or indicating a CORESET group or a search space group (see Fig. 6, [0057] for RRC signaling is utilized to signal the configuration of the Coreset group assigned to the UE, see [0071] – [0074] for plurality of Coresets are grouped to form one or more Coreset groups), and/or
determining CORESETs or search spaces to be within the same time window (see Fig. 4 - Fig. 6).
Sun teaches Group 1, Group 2 (see Fig. 4 – Fig. 6) thus Sun obviously teaches Group index. Thus, Sun is silent about Group IDs.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches Group IDs (see Kim, [0201], [0245] – [0250], [0254] for CORESET group ID mean index/identification information for specific index information defined within a CORESET configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Sun, and have CORESET group ID, as taught by Kim, to identify a CORESET group (or a CORESET pool) for distinguishing the CORESET such that the UE determines whether to perform scrambling/descrambling using CORESET group ID corresponding to a CORESET in which DCI that has scheduled, as discussed by Kim (see Kim, [0201], [0254]).
Regarding claim 2, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to use one frequency band for the communication, and a CORESET group/search space group comprises some or all CORESETs/search spaces in the one frequency band that are provided within a certain time window, or the UE is to use a plurality of frequency bands for the communication, and a CORESET group/search space group comprises some or all CORESETs/search spaces in one or more or all of the plurality of frequency bands that are provided within a certain time window (see Sun, Fig. 4 – Fig. 6, [0056], [0061], [0069] - [0071], [0073], [0075], [0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the certain time window comprises one or more slots or a plurality of consecutive symbols (see Sun, [0071] for the Coreset length correspond to a number of symbols (e.g., one symbol, two symbols, etc.) within the slot).
Regarding claim 4, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to group the search spaces further based on one or more of the following parameters in a search space information element (SearchSpace): searchSpaceld, monitoringSlotPeriodicityAndOffset, duration, monitoringSymbolsWithinSlot, searchSpaceType, dciFormats (see Sun, [0080] for common or specific search space type).
Regarding claim 5, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to be configured with a CORESET group information element, the CORESET group information element indicating CORESET configurations to be considered for the grouping (see Sun, [0057], [0060], [0075], and see Kim, [0201], [0245] – [0250], [0254]).
Regarding claim 6, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to be configured, e.g., using RRC signaling (i.e., RRC configuration by the gNB), with one or more CORESET information elements (ControiResourceSet), wherein a CORESET information element comprises the group ID (grouplndex) so as to indicate which CORESET configurations to consider for the grouping (see Sun, [0057], [0060], [0062], and see Kim, [0201], [0252]).
Regarding claim 7, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to be configured with a search space group information element, the search space group information element indicating search spaces and associated CORESETs being part of the same search space group (see Sun, [0057], [0080], [0090]).
Regarding claim 8, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to be configured with one or more CORESET information elements (ControlResourceSet) and one or more search space information elements (SearchSpace), wherein a search space information element comprises a search space group indication element (searchSpaceGroup) comprising the group ID (groupIndex) (see Sun, Fig. 3 – Fig. 6, [0057], [0080], [0090], and see Kim, [0201], [0232], [0245] – [0250]).
Regarding claim 9, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to be configured with a parameter activating or deactivating the grouping (see Sun, [0057], [0060] – [0062], and see Kim, [0178], [0257]).
Regarding claim 10, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to coordinate decoding the control information (i.e., DCI) for the UE from the search spaces using the grouping (see Sun, [0062], [0063, [0070], [0080], [0088] for in response to detecting the at least one Coreset group of the one or more Coreset groups, decoding, by the UE, the information included in the at least one Coreset group), wherein the decoding may comprise blind decoding (see Sun, [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Sun in view of Kim discloses wherein the UE is to receive a default CORESET configuration for a group, and to configure the remaining CORESETs of the group according to the default CORESET configuration (see Sun, [0057], [0060], [0062], [0075] for the primary Coreset).
Regarding claim 48, Sun in view of Kim disclose a base station, BS (i.e., gNB in Fig. 1), for a wireless communication system (see 100 in Fig. 1),
wherein the BS is to serve one or more UEs (see UE 115 in Fig. 1) and is to use one or more frequency bands for a communication with the one or more UEs in the wireless communication system, wherein one or more or all of the frequency bands comprise one or more CORESETs carrying control information (i.e., DCI) for the one or more UEs (see Fig. 1, [0043], [0060] for the gNB designated to serve the UE on the downlink and/or uplink, or desired transmission between gNBs, see [0056] for the UE utilize a larger or smaller portion of the frequency spectrum, i.e., narrow band or wide band to communicate with the gNBs), wherein one or more or all of the frequency bands comprise one or more CORESETs, each CORESET comprising one or more search spaces carrying control information for the UE (see Fig. 3, [0049] for Coresets are designed for transmission of common physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) information and utilized to carry a slot type indicator, control format indicator (CFI) information (e.g., information that indicates a number of symbols used to carry the Coresets), other types of information (e.g., downlink control indicator (DCI) information, etc.; see [0057] for search space configured for each CORESET, see [0060] – [0063], i.e., a list of primary Coresets is provided to the UE by a serving cell, the UE then pick a primary Coreset of the neighbor cell that is close to its own monitored Coreset(s)), and
wherein the BS is to configure, e.g., using RRC signaling, the one or more UEs with one or more group (see Fig. 6, [0057], [0062] for RRC signaling is utilized to signal the configuration of the Coreset group assigned to the UE), each group pointing to or indicating a group of one or more other CORESETs or one or more search spaces, wherein a CORESET group comprises some or all CORESETs within a certain time window, and wherein a search space group comprises some or all search spaces within the certain time window (see Fig. 4 – Fig. 6, [0057] for RRC signaling is utilized to signal the configuration of the Coreset group assigned to the UE, see [0068] – [0074] for plurality of Coresets are grouped to form one or more Coreset groups, the Coreset length correspond to a number of symbols (e.g., one symbol, two symbols, etc.) within the slot that are utilized to provide the Coreset, see [0080] for each of the one or more Coreset groups provides search space).
Sun teaches Group 1, Group 2 (see Fig. 4 – Fig. 6) thus Sun obviously teaches Group index. Thus, Sun is silent about Group IDs.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches Group IDs (see Kim, [0201], [0245] – [0250], [0254] for CORESET group ID mean index/identification information for specific index information defined within a CORESET configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Sun, and have CORESET group ID, as taught by Kim, to identify a CORESET group (or a CORESET pool) for distinguishing the CORESET such that the UE determines whether to perform scrambling/descrambling using CORESET group ID corresponding to a CORESET in which DCI that has scheduled, as discussed by Kim (see Kim, [0201], [0254]).
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) (Pub # US 2018/0227777 A1) in view of Kim (Pub # US 2022/01569641 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kami et al. (hereinafter “Kami”) (CN 101061464B).
Regarding claim 11, Sun in view of Kim disclose wherein the UE is to concatenate or combine the CORESETs or the search spaces of a group (see Sun, [0057], [0060], [0061], [0065]).
Sun in view of Kim do not disclose wherein a virtual CORESET or a virtual search space is defined.
In related art, Kami discloses a virtual CORESET or a virtual search space is defined (see Kami, [0230], [0261] for using usable virtual resource space information recorded in all the set combination to generate a virtual service group search space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Sun/Kim, and have a virtual search space is defined such that improve the utilization efficiency of the resource, as discussed by Kami (see Kami, [0006]).
11. Claims 17, 19 – 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) (Pub # US 2018/0227777 A1) in view of Kim (Pub # US 2022/01569641 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (hereinafter “Pan”) (Pub # US 2022/0248380 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sun in view of Kim disclose about carrier aggregation (see Sun, [0074], [0084], [0089]).
Sun in view of Kim do not disclose specifically that wherein, in case the UE successfully finds control information, e.g. DCI, in a current CORESET comprising a certain aggregation level, AL, the UE is not to expect control information for itself in a CORESET with another AL or in case the UE successfully finds control information in a current search space comprising a certain aggregation level, AL, the UE is not to expect control information for itself in a search space with another AL.
In an analogous art, Pan discloses in case the UE successfully finds control information, e.g. DCI, in a current CORESET comprising a certain aggregation level, AL, the UE is not to expect control information for itself in a CORESET with another AL or in case the UE successfully finds control information in a current search space comprising a certain aggregation level, AL, the UE is not to expect control information for itself in a search space with another AL (see Pan, [0055], [0072] for a set of aggregation levels at which a PDCCH requires to be blindly detected in the CORESET or a DCI parameter of a PDCCH requiring to be blindly detected in the CORESET, and see [0074] – [0076] for blind detections is represented based on an aggregation level, when a UE performs blind detection in a PDCCH search space, the UE only needs to attempt to decode a DCI that may occur, and does not need to match all DCI formats.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Sun/Kim, and have the UE successfully finds control information, e.g. DCI, in a current CORESET comprising a certain aggregation level, AL, the UE is not to expect control information for itself in a CORESET with another AL or in case the UE successfully finds control information in a current search space comprising a certain aggregation level, AL, the UE is not to expect control information for itself in a search space with another AL such that the UE limits to the maximum number of blind detections in order to reduce the complexity of blind detection, as discussed by Pan (see Pan, [0074] – [0076]).
Regarding claim 19, Sun in view of Kim and Pan disclose wherein, in case the UE successfully finds control information (i.e., DCI) in a current CORESET, the UE is not to expect control information for itself in another CORESETs (see Sun, [0062], [0063], [0070], [0075], [0080], [0082], and see Pan, [0074] – [0076] for when a UE performs blind detection in a PDCCH search space, the UE only needs to attempt to decode a DCI that may occur, and does not need to match all DCI formats such that the UE limits to the maximum number of blind detections in order to reduce the complexity of blind detection, as discussed by Pan (see Pan, [0074] – [0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Sun in view of Kim and Pan disclose wherein, once the UE successfully decoded one PDCCH in a CORESET the UE is to stop or deactivate the blind decoding in other CORESETs of the CORESET group (see Sun, [0062], [0063], [0070], [0075], [0080], [0082], and see Pan, [0074] – [0076] for when a UE performs blind detection in a PDCCH search space, the UE only needs to attempt to decode a DCI that may occur, and does not need to match all DCI formats such that the UE limits to the maximum number of blind detections in order to reduce the complexity of blind detection, as discussed by Pan (see Pan, [0074] – [0076]).
Regarding claim 21, Sun in view of Kim and Pan disclose wherein, responsive to successfully detecting a PDCCH in a certain subband, e.g., in one of the frequency domain monitoring locations, i.e. a CORESET of a CORESET group, for a time window, e.g. a COT duration or an uninterrupted DL burst, the UE is to continue to blind decode only within the frequency domain monitoring location, i.e. a CORSET of a CORESET group, at which the PDCCH is found for the search space associated with the found PDCCH or a pre-configured subset or all search spaces which are associated with the CORESET group (see Sun, [0062], [0063], [0070], [0075], [0080], [0082], and see Pan, [0055] for a DCI parameter of a PDCCH requiring to be blindly detected in the CORESET, wherein the time-frequency resource information of a CORESET includes frequency-domain resource information of the CORESET (such as the number of PRBs, and a time-frequency position), and time-domain resource information (such as the number of OFDM symbols), see [0074] – [0076] for when a UE performs blind detection in a PDCCH search space, the UE only needs to attempt to decode a DCI that may occur, and does not need to match all DCI formats such that the UE limits to the maximum number of blind detections in order to reduce the complexity of blind detection, as discussed by Pan (see Pan, [0074] – [0076]).
Regarding claim 25, Sun in view of Kim and Pan disclose wherein the control information of some or all of the CORSETs indicate in which of the CORSETs out of the CORESET group control information for the UE is present (see Sun, [0062], [0063], [0070], [0075], [0080], [0082], and see Pan, [0055] for a DCI parameter of a PDCCH requiring to be blindly detected in the CORESET, see Table 1, [0069] – [0076], [0081], [0082] for configuration information of CORESET is configured in a unit of a carrier, a bandwidth part (BWP), resource element groups, etc.)
12. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) (Pub # US 2018/0227777 A1) in view of Kim (Pub # US 2022/01569641 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hang et al. (hereinafter “Hang”) (Pub # US 2021/0385008 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Sun in view of Kim do not disclose specifically that wherein the CORESETs or search spaces of a certain group are prioritized or ranked, and wherein the UE is to blind decode the CORESETs or search spaces of the certain group according to the prioritization or ranking thereof.
In an analogous art, Hang discloses wherein the CORESETs or search spaces of a certain group are prioritized or ranked, and wherein the UE is to blind decode the CORESETs or search spaces of the certain group according to the prioritization or ranking thereof (see Hang, FIG. 3, [0140] – [0149], [0166] – [0170], [0197], where Hang is discussing that the search spaces in the search space set are sorted in ascending order of identifiers IDs of source search space sets respectively corresponding to the search space, and the UE determines quantity of blind detection times corresponding to the first search space set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Sun/Kim, and have the CORESETs or search spaces of a certain group are ranked in ascending order, and wherein the UE is to blind decode the CORESETs or search spaces of the certain group according to the ranking thereof such that the UE limits to the maximum number of blind detections in order to reduce the complexity of blind detection, as discussed by Hang (see Hang, [0005], [0145]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-THUY THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 6PM (IFP).
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at (571)272-7795. 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.
/MONG-THUY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights