DEATILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The examiner has taken notice that claims 4, 7 and 10 have been amended. Claims 4-12 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues that Cirik fails to teach or suggest that the value range excludes numbers other than {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16}.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Cirik teaches (Paragraphs [0201]; [0260]; [0327]) the system constraints that would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to exclude values 9-15 from the configured range while including 16. The sentence “increase the latency/delay of data communication. Increased latency/delay may be especially disadvantageous for services that require low latencies (e.g., ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) services).” Explains that excessive repetitions create unacceptable latency providing a clear motivation to limit the maximum useful repetition value. “Using multiple default receiving beams may increase complexity and power consumption at the wireless device… the wireless device may have to activate multiple antenna panels to be able to use multiple default receiving beams. Activating multiple antenna panels may increase power consumption at the wireless device.” Explains that higher numbers of transmission occasions directly increase device complexity and power consumption. A PHOSITA would therefore be motivated to define a closed set that caps the maximum value at a computationally efficient power of two (16), which provide no additional implementation efficiency benefit over 8 or 16.
Applicant argues that all dependent claims are allowable based on the above arguments. Since the 103 rejection of claims 1,7 and 10 are sustained, the rejections on the dependent claims will not be withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites that: “and the value range excludes numbers other than {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16).”
However, the specification fails to provide adequate written description support for the exclusionary limitation. Specifically, the specification at paragraph [0037] discloses “The number of PDSCH or PUSCH repetitions scheduled by single DCI may be at least one of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 16}”. The phrase “at least one of” is permissive and non-exhaustive language that only indicates these values are possible options. It doesn’t describe or suggest that values outside this such as 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 are excluded.
Similarly, paragraph [0098] repeat the same permissive language: “P may be at least one “{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,16}”. Nowhere in the specification does the applicant, explicitly state that other values are excluded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2023/0132040; hereinafter Gao) in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2020/0229161; hereinafter Raghavan) in further view of Cirik et al. (US 2021/0136802; hereinafter Cirik).
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches a method, performed by a terminal device (Paragraph[0050] Describes methods performed by User equipment (UE)),
the method comprising: receiving a downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), the DCI indicating at least one transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state (Paragraphs [0023]; [0034]; [0036]-[0037] Describes the reception of the DCI (DCI for scheduling the PDSCH) and indicates TCI states);
and receiving the PDSCH in a plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions, in a case where the PDSCH is configured in multiple slots (Paragraph [0042] describes determining PDSCH transmission occasions. Paragraph [0036] describes PDSCH transmitted “in four consecutive slots.” Paragraph [0113] describes scheduling scenarios involving multiple transmissions, and various embodiments describe PDSCH transmission over multiple TRPs in different slots),
wherein the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions are associated with two TCI states corresponding to a lowest codepoint among TCI codepoints containing two different TCI states (Paragraphs [0023]-[0024]; [0042] describes determining PDSCH transmission occasions associated with two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint),
in a case where at least one TCI state indicates two TCI states and an offset between a reception of the DCI and a reception of a first PDSCH transmission occasion is less than a threshold (Paragraphs [0041]-[0043] describes where the timing offset between DCI reception and PDSCH reception is below a threshold, and describe how TCI sates are determined in such cases, including when two TCI states are indicated),
However, Gao doesn’t teach wherein the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint are based on activated TCI states in a slot, comprising the first PDSCH transmission occasion, and wherein a value range of a number of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions is configured to be {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16} and the value range excludes numbers other than {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16).
However, in analogous art Raghavan teaches wherein the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint are based on activated TCI states in a slot, comprising the first PDSCH transmission occasion (Paragraphs [0024];[0026] describes how the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint are selected based on active configurations in the relevant slot),
Raghavan doesn’t teach and wherein a value range of a number of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions is configured to be {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16} and the value range excludes numbers other than {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16).
However, in analogous art Cirik teaches and wherein a value range of a number of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions is configured to be {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16} and the value range excludes numbers other than {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16) (Paragraphs [0218]; [0223]; [0225] describes the repetition quantity parameter can indicate various numbers of PDSCH transmission occasions including 2, 4, and 8 which falls within the claimed range. The Phrase “or any other quantity” suggest the teaching is not limited and would encompass the full range (2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 16). Paragraphs describes [0201]; [0260]; [0327]) the system constraints that would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to exclude values 9-15 from the configured range while including 16. Activating multiple antenna panels may increase power consumption at the wireless device.” Explains that higher numbers of transmission occasions directly increase device complexity and power consumption. A PHOSITA would therefore be motivated to define a closed set that caps the maximum value at a computationally efficient power of two (16), which provide no additional implementation efficiency benefit over 8 or 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao’s method of determining TCI states for PDSCH transmission occasions under timing constraints and the teaching of Raghavan’s slot specific TCI state determination approach to improve TCI state selection accuracy and reliability in multi-slot PDSCH configurations by incorporating the teaching of Cirik various numbers of PDSCH transmission occasions to improve reliability and robustness of reception of the TB (Cirik, Paragraph [0199]).
Regarding claim 5, Gao in view of Raghavan’s in further view of Cirik, Gao teaches wherein: a first TCI state of the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint is applied to the first PDSCH transmission occasion of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions, and a second TCI state of the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint is applied to a second PDSCH transmission occasion of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions (Paragraphs [0035] describes how different TCI states (associated with TRP1 and TRP2) are applied to different PDSCH transmissions. The PDSCH#1 from TRP1 represent the first transmission occasion with the first TCI state, and PDSCH #2 from TRP2 represents the second transmission occasion with the second TCI. Paragraph [0052] describes different TCI states from a codepoint set being applied to different transmissions. Paragraph [0024] shows the lowest codepoint (value 0) maps to two TCI states that would be applied to different transmissions).
Regarding claim 6, Gao in view of Raghavan’s in further view of Cirik, Gao teaches determining the PDSCH is associated with a single PDSCH transmission occasion (Paragraphs [0133]-[0134] describes if one TCI state is indicated, the corresponding PDSCH is sent),
in a case where a number of the at least one TCI state indicated by the DCI is one (Paragraph [0133] describes after a DCI is decoded and if one TCI state is indicated),
wherein the single PDSCH transmission occasion is associated with a first TCI state of the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint among the TCI codepoints containing two different TCI states (Paragraphs [0024]; [0042]; [0131]; [0133] “the first default TCI state is the TCI state activated for a CORESET having the lowest ControlResourceSetId” and “the corresponding PDSCH is sent with the default TCI”),
in a case where the at least one TCI codepoint indicates two TCI states, and the offset between the reception of the DCI and a reception of the PDSCH is less than the threshold (Paragraphs [0041]-[0043] describes where the timing offset between DCI reception and PDSCH reception is below a threshold, and describe how TCI sates are determined in such cases, including when two TCI states are indicated).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 respectively.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 respectively.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL KIDANE whose telephone number is (571)270-3642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F8:30-5.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Chandrahas B Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/M.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights