DETAILED 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 14, 28 and 30 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should not repeat information given in the title and should be in narrative form and avoid the form often used in patent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 14, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “chronologically last reception” in claims 1, 14, 28 and 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “chronologically last reception” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how the reception of a second object is chronologically last when there is no other reception of the second object. Also, it is unclear how the reception of the second object is last when it precedes the sending and/or receiving of the first object, which appears to be chronologically last relative to the reception of the second object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 14, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0196351 (hereinafter Zhou) in view of US 2023/0047603 (hereinafter Kim) and US 2020/0229169 (hereinafter John Wilson).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 28 and 30, Zhou teaches a beam indication method, applied to a terminal (FIG. 5: details beam indication procedure between a base station 502 and a UE 504), comprising: sending and/or receiving, by the terminal, a first object according to a default beam (FIG. 5; 512, 520: details UE using default beams to receive and transmit data respectively, wherein any signal or channel received or transmitted corresponds to a first object); wherein the second object is physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) ([0092]: details the UE may use the default beam to transmit the uplink communication if scheduling information from the base station for the uplink communication does not indicate an uplink beam, e.g., as determined at 611. In one aspect, the scheduling information is carried by DCI in a PDCCH), and the first object is at least one of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or sounding reference signal (SRS) ([0006][0060]-[0063]: details Each CORESET may indicate where the UE may receive PDCCH transmissions and may include reference signals (e.g. Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), CSI-RS, etc.)… the default UE reception (Rx) beam follows the QCL corresponding to the lowest CORESET ID in the latest monitored slot. For example, referring to FIG. 4C, if Slot 2 was the latest slot and CORESET 1 had the lowest CORESET ID, then assuming spatial quasi-location between PDCCH and PDSCH antenna ports, the default Rx beam which the UE would use to receive data on PDSCH in Slot 2 would be the same as that associated with CORESET 1, e.g., beam 443).
Zhou does not explicitly teach predefined in a system, the system comprising the terminal and a network side device; wherein the default beam corresponds to a beam of a chronologically last transmission of a second object preceding the sending and/or receiving of the first object.
However, Kim teaches predefined in a system, the system comprising the terminal and a network side device ([0343],[0400]-[0410][0479]: details base station may predefine or preconfigure to UE one specific default beam among a plurality of default beams as a valid default beam which will be used for STRP PDSCH reception… when the same DCI/PDCCH is repetitively transmitted by TDM, it may be predetermined and pre-shared that a default beam corresponding to a CORESET pool of a last (i.e., recently) received/transmitted PDCCH (e.g., DCI 2) is configured as a valid default beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Kim and include predefined in a system, the system comprising the terminal and a network side device of Kim with Zhou. Doing so would improve mobile broadband communication (Kim, paragraph [0087]).
Moreover, John Wilson teaches wherein the default beam corresponds to a beam of a chronologically last transmission of a second object preceding the sending and/or receiving of the first object ([0051]: details UE may determine the default beam from a previously received (e.g., the last received) PDCCH and may use a default beam to receive a PDSCH transmission from the base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teachings of John Wilson and include wherein the default beam corresponds to a beam of a chronologically last transmission of a second object preceding the sending and/or receiving of the first object of John Wilson with Zhou. Doing so would improve techniques for default beam identification and BFD (John Wilson, paragraph [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, 28 and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou (US 2021/0105749) details default PDSCH beam selection.
Bai (US 2021/0153239) details Beamforming in multicast communications; PDSCH may be preceded by a PDCCH.
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 Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights