DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on December 09, 2025.
Claims 11-12 and 14-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-12 and 14-16 have been considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument, see pp. 9, “… Guo at most teaches that when the PDSCH is multi-slot PDSCH, the spatial QCL assumption signaled in the DCI is based on a spatial QCL assumption in a first slot of the PDSCH. However, Guo fails to teach that when the PDSCH is a multi-slot PDSCH, [the] indicated TCI state is based on an activated TCI state in a first slot of the PDCH”, the distinction the Applicant is making between Guo and the claimed invention is not clear. QCL assumptions are indicated through TCI states in the DCI, thus the QCL assumption carried in the DCI in Guo (see col. 24, lines 45-50, i.e., “A DCI 1801 carrying the spatial QCL assumption is received by a UE at slot n. The UE can be requested to use the spatial QCL assumption carried in DCI 1801 to calculate the Rx beam to receive the PDSCH transmission during the valid time window 1810, from slot n+m1 to slot n+m1+N1”, read as a multi-slot PDSCH transmission) represents an active or signaled TCI state for multi-slotted PDSCH, which appears to be all that the claim limitation is saying, i.e., “when the PDSCH is a multi-slot PDSCH, indicated TCI state is based on an activated TCI state in a first slot of the PDSCH”.
Furthermore, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, this was also a 3GPP standard practice for multi-slotted PDSCH, see 5G; NR; Physical layer procedures for data (3GPP TS 38.214 version 15.6.0 Release 15)", ETSI TS 138 214 V15.6.0, Jul. 2019, §5.1.5, pp. 28, i.e., “When the UE is configured with a multi-slot PDSCH, the indicated TCI state should be based on the activated TCI states in the first slot with the scheduled PDSCH, and UE shall expect the activated TCI states are the same across the slots with the scheduled PDSCH.”
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is a typographical error in claims 11 and 14-16. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…when the PDSCH is a multi-slot PDSCH, the indicated TCI state is based on an activated TCI state in a first slot of the PDSCH.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to based on its dependency to claim 11.
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.
Claims 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2020/0107353)(“Jung”) in view of Guo (US 10,506,587)(“Guo”), in further view of Yerramalli et al. (US 2020/0112941)(“Yerramalli”).
As per claim 11, Jung teaches a terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives multiple Physical Downlink Shared Channels (PDSCHs) based on a single downlink control information (see ¶0081); and
a processor that determines that a Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) state applied to the multiple PDSCHs (i.e., at least a first and second PDSCH, see ¶0081) corresponds to a TCI state corresponding to a lowest TCI codepoint of TCI codepoints each indicating two TCI states (i.e., “The TCI codepoint in DCI thus can indicate two TCI states…”, see ¶0081. Moreover, although the TCI codepoint is not shown to correspond to “a lowest codepoint” as claimed, nevertheless, impliedly the map of the first and second subset of TCI states to codepoints (see ¶0081) includes a first or lowest indexed mapping, i.e., “a lowest TCI codepoint of TCI codepoints”), wherein the TCI codepoint is indicated by a TCI field included in the downlink control information (i.e., DCI, see ¶0081).
As per claim 11, Jung does not expressly teach, a transmitter that transmits information on a scheduling offset threshold value regarding a terminal capability;
wherein, when a time offset between reception of the downlink control information and reception of a PDSCH corresponding to the downlink control information is less than a scheduling offset threshold value, the processor assumes that the TCI state is applied to the PDSCH,
wherein the scheduling offset threshold value is determined based on higher layer signaling and a beam switching delay, and
when the PDSCH is a multi-slot PDSCH, the indicated TCI state is based on an activated TCI state in a first slot of the PDSCH.
Nevertheless, in the same art of PDCCH/PDSCH transmission, Guo teaches a transmitter that transmits information on a scheduling offset threshold as a terminal capability (see col. 18, line 47-col. 19, line 16, wherein a UE (i.e., terminal) reports information on a minimum time duration needed between PDCCH and PDSCH which is used to determine a “threshold T”, read as “a scheduling offset threshold value”); and
wherein, when a time offset between reception of the downlink control information and reception of a PDSCH corresponding to the downlink control information is less than a scheduling offset threshold value (i.e., “if the offset between reception of the DL DCI and the corresponding PDSCH is less than the threshold T…”), the processor assumes that a TCI state corresponding to a lowest CORESET ID is applied to the PDSCH (i.e., “…the UE may assume that the antenna ports of DMRS of PDSCH are quasi co-located based on the TCI state used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication of the lowest CORESET ID in the latest slot where one or more CORESETs is configured for that UE”)(see col. 18, lines 36-43), and
when the PDSCH is a multi-slot PDSCH, the indicated TCI state is based on an activated TCI state in a first slot of the PDSCH (see col. 23, lines 60-63, The UE can be configured to apply the spatial QCL assumption signaled in one DCI [“activated TCI state”] to one or more PDSCH transmitted in a particular time period after that DCI”, also see col. 24, lines 45-50, i.e., “A DCI 1801 carrying the spatial QCL assumption is received by a UE at slot n. The UE can be requested to use the spatial QCL assumption carried in DCI 1801 to calculate the Rx beam to receive the PDSCH transmission during the valid time window 1810, from slot n+m1 to slot n+m1+N1”, read as a multi-slot PDSCH transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jung with the teachings of Guo for sending UE capability information for calculating a scheduling offset threshold value, and thereafter obtaining QCL (Quasi Co-location) assumptions for PDSCH and/or multi-slot PDSCH reception according to a TCI state associated with a lowest CORESET-ID. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to enable QCL assumptions for properly receiving and decoding PDSCH and/or multi-slot PDSCH transmissions in Jung.
As per claim 11, the combination of Jung and Guo does not expressly teach the scheduling offset threshold value is based on higher layer signaling and a beam switching delay.
Nevertheless, in the same art of in the same art of PDCCH/PDSCH transmission, Yerramalli teaches estimating a scheduling offset based on a beam switching delay (see for Yerramalli, ¶0062 (which is further supported in ¶0061 of provisional application No. 62/741197 (‘197 Application)). Furthermore, Yerramalli supports the scheduling offset threshold value being determined based on higher layer signaling (see ¶0063, i.e., determined from a UE capability report indicated by a radio resource control (RRC) message (read as higher layer signaling), (which is further supported in ¶0062 of provisional application No. 62/741197 (‘197 Application)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further determine the scheduled offset threshold value based on a beam switching delay. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more precise offset threshold value, thus ensuring the reception of the corresponding PDSCH transmission.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further use higher layer signaling for determining/configuring the offset threshold (e.g., “a UE capability report, indicated in a configuration (e.g., in an RRC message and/or the like)”, see Yerramalli ¶0062). The obvious motivation so would have been to support reconfiguration or negotiation of the offset between the UE and the base station in Jung (see also Yerramalli ¶0062).
As per claim 12, Jung does not expressly teach wherein the TCI state is a default TCI state applied to the multiple PDSCHs.
Nevertheless, the use of a default TCI state for application to a PDSCH was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Guo, col. 18, lines 36-43, wherein the TCI state corresponding to the lowest CORESET ID is being interpreted as a “default TCI state”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Jung and Guo in claim 11 applies equally well to claim 12.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 11 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, James Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441