Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined 3)
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 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.
3. 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.
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
ZTE, Maintenance of enhancements on multi-beam operation[online], 3GPP TSG RAN
WGI #100b e R1-2001597, 2020.04.11, #2. 2.2. In view of John ( 2019/0356399).
For claim 11, ZTE discloses a system for multi-slot PUCCH transmission, when default beam and path-loss mode is enabled, the TCI state of PDCCH/CORESET is activated by MAC-CE, and the multi-slot PUCCH may cross the applicable timing of MAC-CE based update. Consequently, it should be specified which TCI state, e.g., old or new TCI state(s), is used for determining spatial relation of PUCCH for each slot.
Straightforwardly, it is recommended that the default spatial relation and path-loss RS is
based on the active TCI state in each slot of multi- slot PUCCH.
For claim 11, ZTE discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the
exception of multi-transmission/reception point (TRP) in a communications network.
John from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of multi-
transmission/reception point (TRP). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use
multi-transmission/reception point (TRP) as taught by John in the communications
network of ZTE for the purpose of using multi-transmission/reception point (TRP) in the
network.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 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.
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 fora 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 7,8,12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE, Maintenance of enhancements on multi-beam operation[online], 3GPP TSG RAN WGI #100b e R1-2001597, 2020.04.11, #2. 2. 2. In view of John and further in view of Nam(2016/0157218).
For claim 7,8,12, and 13 ZTE discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention
with the exception of multi-transmission/reception point (TRP) in a communications
network. John from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of multi-
transmission/reception point (TRP). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use
multi-transmission/reception point (TRP) as taught by John in the communications
network of ZTE for the purpose of using multi-transmission/reception point (TRP) in the
network.
For claims 17,8,12, and 13, ZTE discloses all the subject matter of the claimed
invention with the exception of memory, processor and a non-transitory computer
readable medium having executable codes in a communications network. Nam et al.
from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of the memory,
processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes (
See paragraphs 0014 and 0052). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use memory, processor and a non-
transitory computer readable medium having executable codes as taught by Nam et al.
in the communication network of ZTE for the purpose of storing codes in the memory to
execute the process by the processor.
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, 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over. ZTE,
Maintenance of enhancements on multi-beam operation[online], 3GPP TSG RAN WGI
#100b e R1-2001597, 2020.04.11, #2. 2.2. In view of John and further in view of Cirik
et al. (2020/0221485).
For claim 10, ZTE and John disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the processor uses, as the spatial relation, a transmission
configuration indication (TCI) state of a control resource set (CORESET) with a lowest
index in an active downlink bandwidth part (BWP) in a communications network. Cirik et
al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein the
processor uses, as the spatial relation, a transmission configuration indication (TCI)
state of a control resource set (CORESET) with a lowest index in an active downlink
bandwidth part (BWP) ( see paragraph 0052 lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been
obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention to use wherein the processor uses, as the spatial relation, a transmission
configuration indication (TCI) state of a control resource set (CORESET) with a lowest
index in an active downlink bandwidth part (BWP) as taught by Cirik et al. in the
communication network of ZTE and John for the purpose of indicating the TCI state.
10. Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks of 2/26/2026, applicant traverses the rejection of 35 USC 103. The traversal is based on the ground of ZTE and John fail to teach limitations "when multi- transmission/reception point (TRP) operation is configured for the terminal, controlling to apply a spatial relation to be applied to a first slot of a multi-slot physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission to each of other slots of the multi-slot PUCCH transmission," as required by independent claim 11. Independent claim 7 recites the above limitations that are substantially similar to the above limitations of independent claim 11. It logically follows that ZTE and John also fail to teach the above-referenced limitations of independent claim 7.
Those arguments are not found to be persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed at paragraph of 0042 lines 1-10 and details of box 1510 in figure 15 of John wherein it teaches TRP and section 2.2.2 of ZTE wherein it teaches controlling to apply a spatial relation to be applied to a first slot of a multi-slot physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission to each of other slots of the multi-slot PUCCH transmission.
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to DANG T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-
3171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 5:30 AM to 3:00 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-3795. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.uspto.gov/patents/a 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.
Application/Control Number: 17/918,778
Page 8
Art Unit: 2476
/DANG T TON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/D.T.T/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476