Detail Action
The office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 3/10/2026.
Claims Status
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 10 and 11 have been newly added.
Claims 1-11 are pending in this application.
Notice of 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Venugopal et al. (Publication No. 2021/0195530), The prior art discloses that the BS may transmit the indication of the uplink TCI state in a downlink communication, such as a radio resource control (RRC) communication, a medium access control element (MAC-CE).
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 5, Applicant remarks, filed on 03/10/2026, “asserts that claim 5, as amended, does not invoke the alleged claim interpretation and such interpretation is also not sought”. The amendment recites “using, in response to the configuration information satisfying an application condition…”. Examiner notes that the amendments to the limitation fails to avoid the claim interpretation of a contingent limitation, because still present the scenario where the step only occurs after satisfying the application condition. Examiner suggest amending the claim by incorporating a determination step associated with the limitation, which would require the determination step for operation of the invention and later steps cannot occur without it. For example, “determining that the configuration information includes an application condition, and in response to the configuration information satisfying the application condition calculating a pathloss of the uplink signal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding claim 1, Applicant remarks, filed on 03/10/2026, indicate that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to discloses the features in claim 1. In specific, Applicant indicates that the features reciting “and a higher layer parameter for the uplink signal being configured” are not disclosed by the prior art. Examiner agrees, based on the remarks, that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the prior art rejection. However, a new ground of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments is set forth. Ji discloses that the mobile communication system may be configured through higher layer signaling such as radio resource control (RRC) signaling, wherein the RRC IE configure a list of TCI states used as the pathloss RS for uplink transmission; see ¶ 0099 and ¶ 512/515. For this reason the claim is met by the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.
The system 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 Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim 5 is a process claim that include at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim comprises a first limitation that recite “receiving configuration information related to an uplink signal” and a second limitation that recite “using, in response to the configuration information satisfying an application condition…”. The second limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the second limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “the configuration information satisfies an application condition”), but it fails to explicitly disclose a step when the condition does not occur. Therefore, the contingent limitation is not included in the BRI of the claim based on the interpretation that the condition does not occur. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections however those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
Claim 11 is a process claim that include at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim comprises a first limitation that recite “receiving configuration information related to an uplink signal” and a second limitation that recite “processor uses, in a case where the configuration information satisfies the application condition …”. The second limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the second limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “the configuration information satisfies an application condition”), but it fails to explicitly disclose a step when the condition does not occur. Therefore, the contingent limitation is not included in the BRI of the claim based on the interpretation that the condition does not occur. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections however those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (Publication No. 2023/0023719, hereinafter referred as Ji) in view of Yu et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0051668, hereinafter referred as Yu).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Ji discloses a receiver that receives configuration information related to an uplink signal (TCI states activated by a MAC-CE in a list of TCI states configured within PDSCH-Config in RRC IE; see ¶ 0512.); and
a processor in response to a reference signal of quasi-co-location (QCL) type D in a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for a downlink channel being not a periodic reference signal, at least one of the reference signal of the QCL type D and a reference signal of QCL type A in the TCI state, for calculation of a pathloss of the uplink signal (The reference signal (RS) within the transmission configuration indication (TCI) state selected may be used as the pathloss RS for uplink transmission, wherein the RS selected as the pathloss RS may be a QCL-typeD RS or QCL-typeA; see ¶ 0515. Furthermore, the RS is an aperiodic CSI-RS for tracking (TRS); see ¶ 0112.).
and a higher layer parameter for the uplink signal being configured (The mobile communication system may be configured through higher layer signaling such as radio resource control (RRC) signaling, wherein the RRC IE configure a list of TCI states used as the pathloss RS for uplink transmission; see ¶ 0099 and ¶ 512/515.).
Ji discloses fails to disclose that in case where the configuration information satisfies an application condition, wherein the application condition comprises the uplink signal being located in a frequency band other than a Frequency Range 1 (FR1) and the uplink signal satisfying a signal condition, and wherein the signal condition comprises neither a spatial relation nor a pathloss reference signal for the uplink signal being configured. However, in analogous art, Yu discloses that the UE may determine a default spatial domain transmission filter for an UL resource according to at least one QCL parameter of a CORESET after determining that the UL resource is not configured with a spatial domain transmission filter and a pathloss reference RS resource, and wherein the UE may transmit the UL resource by applying the default spatial domain transmission (Tx) filter; see figure 3 numeral 302-304 & ¶ 0132. The UE is configured with a subset [frequency band] of the total cell bandwidth of a cell is referred to as a BWP; see ¶ 0153. NOTE: The clause “the uplink signal being located in a frequency band other than a Frequency Range 1 (FR1)” has been interpreted as any frequency. Examiner suggest to amend the claim in such a way that is clear what distinguish the frequency band from the frequency rage 1. For example, wherein the FR1 comprises 5GHz-6Ghz range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ji QCL feature with the default spatial domain transmission (Tx) filter in order to enable transmission of the uplink signal when the spatial domain transmission filter and a pathloss reference RS resource is not configured.
Regarding claim 2, Ji discloses that the at least one of the reference signal of the OCL type D and the reference signal of the OCL type A is at least one of a periodic reference signal of the QCL type A, a periodic reference signal related to a reference signal for tracking (The TCI state configurations when the target antenna port is a CSI-RS for tracking (TRS); see ¶ 0112.), and a periodic reference signal QCLed with a QCL type D reference signal.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Ji discloses that the at least one of the reference signal of the OCL type D and the reference signal of the OCL type A depends on either a configuration of the QCL type A and the QCL type D in the TCI state or whether the QCL type D in the TCI state is a semi-persistent channel state information reference signal (SP-CSI-RS) or an aperiodic CSI-RS (The RS is an aperiodic CSI-RS for tracking (TRS); see ¶ 0112.).
Regarding claim 6, Ji discloses a transmitter that transmits configuration information related to an uplink signal (TCI states activated by a MAC-CE in a list of TCI states configured within PDSCH-Config in RRC IE; see ¶ 0512. It is inherent that the BS includes a transmitting section in order to transmit the TCI states.); and
a receiver that in response to a reference signal of quasi-co-location (QCL) type D in a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for a downlink channel being not a periodic reference signal, the uplink signal with a transmit power based on at least one of the reference signal of the QCL type D and a reference signal of OCL type A in the TCI state (The reference signal (RS) within the transmission configuration indication (TCI) state selected may be used as the pathloss RS for uplink transmission, wherein the RS selected as the pathloss RS may be a QCL-typeD RS or QCL-typeA, wherein determining transmission power of the UE may include a pathloss estimation value; see ¶ 0443. Furthermore, the RS is an aperiodic CSI-RS for tracking (TRS); see ¶ 0112. It is inherent that the BS includes a receiving section in order to receive the uplink signal.).
Ji discloses fails to disclose that in case where the configuration information satisfies an application condition, wherein the application condition comprises the uplink signal being located in a frequency band other than a Frequency Range 1 (FR1) and the uplink signal satisfying a signal condition, and wherein the signal condition comprises neither a spatial relation nor a pathloss reference signal for the uplink signal being configured. However, in analogous art, Yu discloses that the UE may determine a default spatial domain transmission filter for an UL resource according to at least one QCL parameter of a CORESET after determining that the UL resource is not configured with a spatial domain transmission filter and a pathloss reference RS resource, and wherein the UE may transmit the UL resource by applying the default spatial domain transmission (Tx) filter; see figure 3 numeral 302-304 & ¶ 0132. The UE is configured with a subset [frequency band] of the total cell bandwidth of a cell is referred to as a BWP; see ¶ 0153. NOTE: The clause “the uplink signal being located in a frequency band other than a Frequency Range 1 (FR1)” has been interpreted as any frequency. Examiner suggest to amend the claim in such a way that is clear what distinguish the frequency band from the frequency rage 1. For example, wherein the FR1 comprises 5GHz-6Ghz range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ji QCL feature with the default spatial domain transmission (Tx) filter in order to enable transmission of the uplink signal when the spatial domain transmission filter and a pathloss reference RS resource is not configured.
Claims 4 and 8-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (Publication No. 2023/0023719, hereinafter referred as Ji) in view of Yu et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0051668, hereinafter referred as Yu) and further in view of He et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0224479, hereinafter referred as He).
Regarding claims 4 and 8-9, Ji fails to disclose that the uplink signal is at least one of a physical uplink control channel, a sounding reference signal, a physical uplink shared channel scheduled by downlink control information format 0_0, and a physical uplink shared channel scheduled by downlink control information format 0_1, and
as the application condition, at least one of the configuration information not including spatial relation information for the uplink signal and the configuration information not including a configuration of a pathloss reference signal for the uplink signal is needed. However, in analogous art, He discloses that the UE may determine a transmission [uplink signal] according to the QCL reference signal of the QCL-Type D activated by the transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for receiving the PDCCH [downlink channel]; see ¶ 0048. Furthermore, the UE is not provided with a spatial setting [application condition] for a transmission [uplink signal] and the PUSCH is scheduled by a DCI format 0_0 of a serving cell; see ¶ 0047. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ji QCL feature with the settings in order to enable effective indication of the uplink channel; see ¶ 0004.
Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (Publication No. 2023/0023719, hereinafter referred as Ji) in view of Yu et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0051668, hereinafter referred as Yu) and further in view of Chen et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0410124, hereinafter referred as Chen).
Regarding claim 10, Ji fails to disclose that the higher layer parameter for the uplink signal enables default beam pathloss information. However, in analogous art, Chen discloses that the pathloss reference signal may be a default pathloss reference signal, thus the terminal equipment may transmit the uplink signal scheduled by the downlink control information [higher layer] according to the default reference signal; see ¶ 0177. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ji QCL feature with the default pathloss mechanism in order to transmit the uplink signal when the spatial relation is not applicable.
Claim 11 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (Publication No. 2023/0023719, hereinafter referred as Ji) in view of Yu et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0051668, hereinafter referred as Yu) and further in view of Zhou et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0006380, hereinafter referred as Zhou).
Regarding claim 11, Ji discloses using, in a case where the configuration information satisfies the application condition, in response to the reference signal of QCL type D in the TCI state for the downlink channel being not the periodic reference signal and at least one of the reference signal of the QCL type D and a reference signal of QCL type A in the TCI state being an aperiodic reference signal for tracking, for calculation of a pathloss of the uplink signal. (The reference signal (RS) within the transmission configuration indication (TCI) state selected may be used as the pathloss RS for uplink transmission, wherein the RS selected as the pathloss RS may be a QCL-typeD RS or QCL-typeA, wherein determining transmission power of the UE may include a pathloss estimation value; see ¶ 0443. Furthermore, the RS is an aperiodic CSI-RS for tracking (TRS); see ¶ 0112.)
Ji fails to disclose that a periodic reference signal for tracking corresponding to the aperiodic reference signal for tracking. However, in analogous art, Zhou discloses receiving a control message indicating a first quasi co-location (QCL) for an aperiodic-tracking reference signal (A-TRS), the A-TRS being associated with a periodic-tracking reference signal (P-TRS), determining a second QCL for the P-TRS based on the first QCL for the A-TRS; see ¶ 0007. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ji QCL feature with the A-TRS mechanism in order to reduce the overhead to change QCL of the P-TRS; see ¶ 0037.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472