DETAILED ACTION
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments, filed on March 27, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 39, 46, 55, and 58 have been considered and are persuasive. Objections to claims 39, 46, 55, and 58 have been withdrawn.
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 49 and 50 have been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the amendment filed on March 27, 2026. Examiner notes that the amendment filed on March 27, 2026 does not include any amendments to claims 49 and 50. For greater clarity, examiner notes that the amendment filed on October 7, 2025 includes amendments to claims 49 and 50, in response to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 49 and 50 made as part of the office action mailed on May 8, 2025.
5. Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 39-47 and 49-59, as amended, under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any combination of the references being used in the current rejection. Examiner has applied Takeda ‘419 (US 11,523,419) to clearly teach the amended limitations in claims 39-47 and 49-59.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 39-43, 46-47, 52, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘532 (US 10,938,532, “Lee ‘532”), in view of Boroujeni ‘501 (US 2021/0352501, “Boroujeni ‘501”), and further in view of Takeda ‘419 (US 11,523,419, “Takeda ‘419”).
Regarding claims 39 and 58, Lee ‘532 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 25, col. 29:59-67, col. 30:1-43; UE 100), comprising:
at least one processor (FIG. 25, col. 29:59-67, col. 30:1-43; processor 120), and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus (FIG. 25, col. 29:59-67, col. 30:1-43; memory 130 stores program code, and is connected to the processor 120, so the UE 100 performs methods) at least to:
determine at least two beams, the determination based at least on transmission and/or reception configuration received from a network node (FIG. 24, col. 1:44-47; col. 29:25-47; UE receives from an eNB a channel state information–reference signal (CSI-RS); the CSI-RS configures a CSI-RS resource and a CSI-RS port; the UE determines two beams used by the UE, based on the CSI-RS resource and CSI-RS port configured by the received CSI-RS; the received CSI-RS reads on transmission and/or reception configuration received from a network node; eNB reads on a network node);
transmit at least two channel state information reports based at least on the at least two beams and the configuration received from the network node (FIG. 24, col. 29:25-47; the UE transmits to the eNB feedback information about the two beams, separately; thus, the UE transmits separately feedback information based on the two beams and the configuration received from the eNB; the separately transmitted feedback information about the two beams reads on the at least two channel state information reports);
receive a physical downlink control channel from the network node (FIGS. 7-8, col. 11:63-67; col. 13:39-58; resources are allocated to channels, including a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); thus, UE receives a PDCCH from a base station; base station reads on the network node); and
receive a physical downlink shared channel from the network node (FIGS. 7-8, col. 11:63-67; col. 13:39-58; resources are allocated to channels, including +a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH); thus, UE receives a PDSCH from the base station).
Although Lee ‘532 discloses receive a physical downlink shared channel from the network node, Lee ‘532 does not specifically disclose the physical downlink control channel carrying scheduling information. Further, Lee ‘532 does not specifically disclose the physical downlink shared channel carrying at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions, each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions is associated with one beam of the at least two beams.
Boroujeni ‘501 teaches the physical downlink control channel carrying scheduling information (para 2 and 6; PDCCH carries downlink control information (DCI); DCI schedules PDSCH; thus, PDCCH carries scheduling information for PDSCH); and
the physical downlink shared channel carrying at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions, each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions is associated with one beam of the at least two beams (para 126; PDSCH carries the same data over multiple beams; thus, PDSCH carries duplicate data transmissions, where the two duplicate data transmissions are each associated with one of the two beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee ‘532’s apparatus that receives duplicate downlink data transmissions, to include Boroujeni ‘501’s PDSCH that carries the same data over multiple beams. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability of a downlink control channel (Boroujeni ‘501, para 88).
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 does not specifically disclose wherein scheduling information for the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions is based on a plurality of multiple transmission configuration indicator states indicated in one downlink control information indicator in the physical downlink control channel.
Takeda ‘419 teaches wherein scheduling information for the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions is based on a plurality of multiple transmission configuration indicator states indicated in one downlink control information indicator in the physical downlink control channel (FIGS. 1A-1B, 2A-2B, and 4A, col. 1:24-, col. 2:1-32, col. 3:28-46, col. 8:48-67, col. 9:1-20, and co. 10:53-56; downlink control information (DCI) is transmitted via physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); downlink data is copied and transmitted as multiple repetitions by multiple transmission/reception points (TRPs) to a user equipment (UE); each TRP transmits a single repetition k in the multiple repetitions is transmitted by a single TRP in the multiple TRP; a single field in the DCI indicates multiple transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states in the form of TCI state IDs; thus, downlink data transmissions are scheduled based on a plurality of multiple TCI states indicated in a single DCI field, where the DCI is transmitted via the PDCCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532 and Boroujeni ‘501, to include Takeda ‘419’s multiple TCI states indicated in a single DCI field. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a user terminal capable of appropriately controlling the reception of the downlink shared channel in case where the repeated transmission of the downlink shared channel is carried out from different TRPs (Takeda ‘419, col. 2:15-20).
Regarding claim 40, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
Further, Lee ‘532 teaches wherein the receiving of the physical downlink control channel and the physical downlink shared channel is performed within a scheduling period (FIGS. 5 and 7-8, col. 9:22-33; col. 11:63-67; col. 13:39-58; OFDM symbol resources are allocated to PDCCH and PDSCH, where OFDM symbol resources are part of a slot; thus, UE receives PDCCH and PDSCH within a slot; a slot reads on a scheduling period).
Regarding claim 41, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 40, as outlined above.
Further, Lee ‘532 teaches wherein the scheduling period comprises at least one of:
a frame;
a subframe;
a slot (FIGS. 5 and 7-8, col. 9:22-33; col. 11:63-67; col. 13:39-58; OFDM symbol resources are allocated to PDCCH and PDSCH, where OFDM symbol resources are part of a slot; thus, UE receives PDCCH and PDSCH within a slot; a slot reads on a scheduling period; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
a sub-slot;
a mini-slot; or
a repetition of a number of repetitions during semi-persistent scheduling or configured grant transmission.
Regarding claim 42, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 41, as outlined above.
Further, Lee ‘532 teaches wherein the at least two channel state information reports are transmitted within the scheduling period (FIG. 24, col. 22:7-27, col. 23:10-27 and 40-49, col. 29:25-47; UE transmits feedback information about two beams over PUCCH, where PUCCH is periodically transmitted in PUCCH periods; thus, the feedback information about two beams is transmitted over a period; feedback information about two beams reads on the at least two channel state information reports).
Regarding claim 43, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
Further, Lee ‘532 teaches wherein the transmission and/or reception configuration is received via at least one of:
a radio resource control configuration (col. 17:64-65; configuration for transmission periodicity is received via RRC signaling; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
a media access control-control element; or
a downlink control information.
Regarding claim 46, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
Further, Boroujeni ‘501 teaches wherein the scheduling information includes at least one of: a first scheduling information for a first one of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions; and a second scheduling information for a second one of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions, wherein the first scheduling information is at least partially different from the second scheduling information (para 117; DCI carries different scheduling information for two PDSCHs carrying the same data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, and Takeda ‘419, to further include Boroujeni ‘501’s DCI that carries different scheduling information for two PDSCHs carrying the same data. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability of a downlink control channel (Boroujeni ‘501, para 88).
Regarding claim 47, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
Further, Boroujeni ‘501 teaches wherein the scheduling information includes scheduling information for the each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions (para 117; DCI carries different scheduling information for two PDSCHs carrying the same data; thus, DCI carries scheduling information for each of the two duplicate data transmissions over the two PDSCHs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, and Takeda ‘419, to further include Boroujeni ‘501’s DCI that carries different scheduling information for two PDSCHs carrying the same data. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability of a downlink control channel (Boroujeni ‘501, para 88).
Regarding claim 52, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
Further, Lee ‘532 teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive the transmission and/or reception configuration from the network node (FIG. 24, col. 1:44-47; col. 29:25-47; UE receives from an eNB a channel state information–reference signal (CSI-RS); the CSI-RS configures a CSI-RS resource and a CSI-RS port; the UE determines two beams used by the UE, based on the CSI-RS resource and CSI-RS port configured by the received CSI-RS; the received CSI-RS reads on transmission and/or reception configuration received from a network node; eNB reads on a network node).
8. Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘532, in view of Boroujeni ‘501, further in view of Takeda ‘419, and further in view of Huang ‘950 (US 2022/0182950, “Huang ‘950”).
Regarding claim 44, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 does not specifically disclose wherein each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions includes a demodulation reference signal.
Huang ‘950 teaches wherein each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions includes a demodulation reference signal (para 5; multiple data streams are transmitted in a signal that includes a DMRS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, and Takeda ‘419, to include Huang ‘950’s multiple data streams that are transmitted in a signal that includes a DMRS. The motivation for doing so would have been to solve the problem that transmission power of a terminal cannot meet an actual requirement (Huang ‘950, para 4).
9. Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘532, in view of Boroujeni ‘501, further in view of Takeda ‘419, and further in view of Feuersänger ‘430 (US 2011/0047430, “Feuersänger ‘430”).
Regarding claim 45, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 does not specifically disclose wherein the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions carry identical data information bits.
Feuersänger ‘430 teaches wherein the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions carry identical data information bits (para 29; re-transmission data packets contain identical information code bits).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, and Takeda ‘419, to include Feuersänger ‘430’s re-transmission data packets that contain identical information code bits. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a disadvantageous case when several applications are running at the same time using a HARQ protocol, with an overall number of HARQ processes limited to 8 (Feuersänger ‘430, para 82).
10. Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘532, in view of Boroujeni ‘501, further in view of Takeda ‘419, and further in view of Chen ‘262 (US 2020/0177262, “Chen ‘262”).
Regarding claim 51, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 does not specifically disclose wherein a highest quality channel state information resource in each group is identified based on received power measurement.
Chen ‘262 teaches wherein a highest quality channel state information resource in each group is identified based on received power measurement (para 74 and 100; CSI-RS resources of highest receiving quality are selected out of a number of CSI-RS resources, based on reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, and Takeda ‘419, to include Chen ‘262’s CSI-RS resources of highest receiving quality that are selected based on RSRP measurement. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the overhead of transmitting beam information between a transmitting end and a receiving end (Chen ‘262, para 4-6).
11. Claim 53 and 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘532, in view of Boroujeni ‘501, further in view of Takeda ‘419, and further in view of Kim ‘734 (US 2022/0201734, “Kim ‘734”).
Regarding claim 53 and 59, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 39 and 58, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 does not specifically disclose wherein the transmission and/or reception configuration comprises at least one of multi-transmission reception point configuration, virtual multi-transmission reception point configuration, or multi-panel configuration.
Kim ‘734 teaches wherein the transmission and/or reception configuration comprises at least one of
multi-transmission reception point configuration (para 4 and 270; UE receives configuration information related to multi-TRP-based transmission/reception; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art),
virtual multi-transmission reception point configuration, or
multi-panel configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, and Takeda ‘419, to include Kim ‘734’s UE receives configuration information related to multi-TRP-based transmission/reception. The motivation for doing so would have been to allocate and configure a frequency resource region for data transmission/reception of a plurality of TRPs based on a non-overlap frequency resource region (Kim ‘734, para 4-5).
12. Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘532, in view of Boroujeni ‘501, further in view of Takeda ‘419, and further in view of Park ‘682 (US 2022/0029682, “Park ‘682”).
Regarding claim 54, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 39, as outlined above.
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 does not specifically disclose wherein the at least two channel state information reports are transmitted within a reporting instance.
Park ‘682 teaches wherein the at least two channel state information reports are transmitted within a reporting instance (para 134; a plurality of channel state information reports are transmitted simultaneously).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, and Takeda ‘419, to include Park ‘682’s plurality of channel state information reports that are transmitted simultaneously. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for a terminal to report information about the state of a channel from one or a plurality of base stations to the terminal for cooperative network communication (Park ‘682, para 9).
13. Claims 55 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘532, in view of Boroujeni ‘501, further in view of Takeda ‘419, and further in view of Zhu ‘733 (US 2022/0052733, “Zhu ‘733”).
Regarding claim 55, Lee ‘532 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 25, col. 29:59-67, col. 30:1-43; base station (BS) 200), comprising:
at least one processor (FIG. 25, col. 29:59-67, col. 30:1-43; processor 220), and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus (FIG. 25, col. 29:59-67, col. 30:1-43; memory 230 stores program code, and is connected to the processor 220, so the BS 200 performs methods) at least to:
receive at least two channel state information reports from a user equipment, the at least two channel state information reports are received based at least on transmission and/or reception configuration transmitted to the user equipment (FIG. 24, col. 1:44-47; col. 29:25-47; UE receives from an eNB a channel state information–reference signal (CSI-RS); the CSI-RS configures a CSI-RS resource and a CSI-RS port; the UE determines two beams used by the UE, based on the CSI-RS resource and CSI-RS port configured by the received CSI-RS; the UE transmits to the eNB feedback information about the two beams, separately; thus, eNB receives from the UE separate feedback information about the two beams, where the feedback information is based on the CSI-RS the eNB transmits to the UE; the separately transmitted feedback information about the two beams reads on the at least two channel state information reports; the CSI-RS transmitted by the eNB reads on transmission and/or reception configuration transmitted to the user equipment);
transmit a physical downlink control channel to the user equipment (FIGS. 7-8, col. 11:63-67; col. 13:39-58; resources are allocated to channels, including a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); thus, base station transmits a PDCCH to the UE; base station reads on the network node); and
transmit a physical downlink shared channel to the user equipment (FIGS. 7-8, col. 11:63-67; col. 13:39-58; resources are allocated to channels, including a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH); thus, base station transmits a PDSCH to the UE).
Although Lee ‘532 discloses transmit a physical downlink control channel to the user equipment, Lee ‘532 does not specifically disclose the physical downlink control channel carrying scheduling information. Further, Lee ‘532 does not specifically disclose the physical downlink shared channel carrying at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions, each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions is associated with one beam of the at least two beams.
Boroujeni ‘501 teaches the physical downlink control channel carrying scheduling information (para 2 and 6; PDCCH carries downlink control information (DCI); DCI schedules PDSCH; thus, PDCCH carries scheduling information for PDSCH); and
the physical downlink shared channel carrying at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions, each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions is associated with one beam of the at least two beams (para 126; PDSCH carries the same data over multiple beams; thus, PDSCH carries duplicate data transmissions, where the two duplicate data transmissions are each associated with one of the two beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee ‘532’s apparatus that transmits duplicate downlink data transmissions, to include Boroujeni ‘501’s PDSCH that carries the same data over multiple beams. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability of a downlink control channel (Boroujeni ‘501, para 88).
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 does not specifically disclose wherein scheduling information for the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions is based on a plurality of multiple transmission configuration indicator states indicated in one downlink control information indicator in the physical downlink control channel.
Takeda ‘419 teaches wherein scheduling information for the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions is based on a plurality of multiple transmission configuration indicator states indicated in one downlink control information indicator in the physical downlink control channel (FIGS. 1A-1B, 2A-2B, and 4A, col. 1:24-, col. 2:1-32, col. 3:28-46, col. 8:48-67, col. 9:1-20, and co. 10:53-56; downlink control information (DCI) is transmitted via physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); downlink data is copied and transmitted as multiple repetitions by multiple transmission/reception points (TRPs) to a user equipment (UE); each TRP transmits a single repetition k in the multiple repetitions is transmitted by a single TRP in the multiple TRP; a single field in the DCI indicates multiple transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states in the form of TCI state IDs; thus, downlink data transmissions are scheduled based on a plurality of multiple TCI states indicated in a single DCI field, where the DCI is transmitted via the PDCCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532 and Boroujeni ‘501, to include Takeda ‘419’s multiple TCI states indicated in a single DCI field. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a user terminal capable of appropriately controlling the reception of the downlink shared channel in case where the repeated transmission of the downlink shared channel is carried out from different TRPs (Takeda ‘419, col. 2:15-20).
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501 and Takeda ‘419 does not specifically disclose determine at least two beams for downlink transmission based on the at least two channel state information reports.
Zhu ‘733 teaches determine at least two beams for downlink transmission based on the at least two channel state information reports (FIG. 1, para 55; a remote unit sends a CSI report to a network unit; the network unit determines two DL beams to use for downlink transmission to the remote unit, based on the received CSI report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, and Takeda ‘419, to include Zhu ‘733’s network unit that determines two DL beams to use for downlink transmission to the remote unit, based on the received CSI report. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide methods for CSI report calculation (Zhu ‘733, para 5).
Regarding claim 56, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501, Takeda ‘419, and Zhu ‘733 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 55, as outlined above.
Further, Lee ‘532 teaches wherein the transmitting of the physical downlink control channel and the physical downlink shared channel is performed within a scheduling period (FIGS. 5 and 7-8, col. 9:22-33; col. 11:63-67; col. 13:39-58; OFDM symbol resources are allocated to PDCCH and PDSCH, where OFDM symbol resources are part of a slot; thus, base station transmits PDCCH and PDSCH within a slot; a slot reads on a scheduling period).
14. Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘532, in view of Boroujeni ‘501, further in view of Takeda ‘419, further in view of Zhu ‘733, and further in view of Huang ‘950 (US 2022/0182950, “Huang ‘950”).
Regarding claim 57, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501, Takeda ‘419, and Zhu ‘733 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 55, as outlined above.
However, Lee ‘532 in combination with Boroujeni ‘501, Takeda ‘419, and Zhu ‘733 does not specifically disclose wherein each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions includes a demodulation reference signal.
Huang ‘950 teaches wherein each of the at least two duplicate downlink data transmissions includes a demodulation reference signal (para 5; multiple data streams are transmitted in a signal that includes a DMRS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Lee ‘532, Boroujeni ‘501, Takeda ‘419, and Zhu ‘733, to include Huang ‘950’s multiple data streams that are transmitted in a signal that includes a DMRS. The motivation for doing so would have been to solve the problem that transmission power of a terminal cannot meet an actual requirement (Huang ‘950, para 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 49 and 50 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.0.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571)272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474