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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02 January 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Yang.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-16 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman et al. (US 2021/0385807 as supported by the corresponding passages and figures of US Provisional application No. 63/035,378, at least pages 18, 20 and 24-25) in view of Yang et al. (US 2020/0383096).
Regarding claim 1, Rahman discloses an apparatus (fig. 3) for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor and the memory configured to (para. 77-80): each activated joint DL and UL TCI state indicating the common beam for communication in DL and UL (figs. 15 and 22 and paras. 28, 139, 149 and 260); and communicate with the base station based on the joint DL and UL TCI state (paras. 139 and 149)
Rahman discloses a correspondence for a TCI state among channel types (fig. 15) but fails to disclose the at least one processor and memory configured to receive, from a base station, at least one configuration that indicates at least one applicable channel type for a joint downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state; and communicate with the base station based on the joint DL and UL TCI state and the at least one applicable channel type. However, Yang discloses a UE receiving a configuration that indicates channel types for a TCI state and communicating based on the TCI state and the channel type (paras. 36 and 86-87; note: state table indicating a TCI state for channel types). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one processor and memory configured to receive, from a base station, at least one configuration that indicates at least one applicable channel type for a joint downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state; and communicate with the base station based on the joint DL and UL TCI state and the at least one applicable channel type in the invention of Rahman. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing specific signaling to indicate related channels as is known in the art (Yang, paras. 36 and 86-87; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Rahman in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the activation of the joint DL and UL TCI state for the CC is received in one or more of a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC-CE) or downlink control information (DCI) (Rahman, para. 132, last three sentences; note: MAC CE activation).
Regarding claim 3, Rahman in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the MAC-CE or the DCI indicates the CC or a bandwidth part (BWP) identifier (ID) for which the joint DL and UL TCI state is activated (Rahman, paras. 118, 139, 282 and 485; note: CC or BWP of CCs, and starting index of a CC or BWP).
Regarding claim 4, Rahman in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the CC is associated with a list of the multiple CCs, and wherein the at least one processor and the memory apply the joint DL and UL TCI state to each CC in the list of the multiple CCs in response to receiving the activation of the joint DL and UL TCI state for the CC (Rahman, para. 139, 315 and 485).
Regarding claim 11, Rahman in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and the memory receive the activation of the joint DL and UL TCI state in a message that indicates a joint TCI state identifier (ID) (Rahman, paras. 139, 315 and 485) and an ID of one or more component in the joint TCI state ID (Rahman, paras. 121 (especially the first three sentences), 260 and 267; note: TCI state includes an indicator for a source RS index/ID).
Regarding claim 12, Rahman in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more component in the joint TCI state ID includes one or more of: a reference signal ID (Rahman, paras. 121 (especially the first three sentences), 260 and 267; note: TCI state includes an indicator for a source RS index/ID).
Regarding claim 13, Rahman in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and the memory are further configured to receive, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI) indicating an index of a TCI codepoint, the index corresponding to one of the activated joint DL and UL TCI states (Rahman, fig. 20, examples A; figs. 15 and 22; paras. 138, 149-151 and 260; note: TCI-DCI indicating a codepoint (or index or identifier) for the joint TCI state of the activated TCI states).
Regarding claims 14-16 and 23-25, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-3 and 11-13, respectively, from the perspective of the base station sending the activation. In addition, Rahman discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station (fig. 2), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor and the memory configured to (para. 67): configure a component carrier (CC) list comprising multiple CCs (para. 61, especially the second sentence and para. 78, especially the first sentence); and transmit, to a user equipment (UE), an activation as in the method of claims 1-3 and 11-13.
Regarding claims 26-30, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1, 8, 13-14 and 23, respectively.
Claims 5-10 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman (‘807) in view of Yang and Rahman et al. (US 2021/0067979).
Regarding claims 5-7, Rahman ‘807 in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious a joint DL and UL TCI state for BWPs in a CC and multiple CCs (para. 118 and 152; note: set/list of BWPs within a CC or CCs; fig. 15; paras. 152, 407 and 485) but fails to teach and make obvious disclose the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor and the memory apply the joint DL and UL TCI state to each BWP of each of the multiple CC, the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor and the memory apply the joint DL and UL TCI state to an active BWP of each of the multiple CCs, and the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the active BWP is a downlink BWP or an uplink BWP.
However, Rahman ‘979 teaches a TCI state applies for all BWPs, including active BWPs, of each CC for CCs in a cell group (paras. 137-138; note: CCs in a cell group; para. 92; note: BWPs in a CC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one processor and the memory apply the joint DL and UL TCI state to each BWP of each of the multiple CC and to an active BWP of each of the multiple CCs, wherein the active BWP is a downlink BWP or an uplink BWP in the invention of Rahman ‘807 in view of Yang. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, reducing signaling overhead to assign TCI states to frequency assignments and channels as is known in the art (Rahman ‘979, paras. 92 and 137-138; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 8-10, Rahman ‘807 in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious a joint DL and UL TCI state for BWPs in a CC and multiple CCs (para. 118 and 152; note: set/list of BWPs within a CC or CCs; fig. 15; paras. 152, 407 and 485) but fails to teach and make obvious the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor and the memory are further configured to: receive a configuration of a CC list for cross-CC activation of the joint DL and UL TCI state, wherein the at least one processor and the memory apply the joint DL and UL TCI state to each CC comprised in the CC list, the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the CC list comprises a dedicated CC list for the cross-CC activation of the joint DL and UL TCI state, and the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the CC list is for the cross-CC activation of a DL TCI state or an UL TCI state.
However, Rahman ‘979 teaches cross-configuration for a dedicated list of CCs (paras. 138 and 143; note: TCI state signaling for an active BWP of a CC applies to all BWPs of all CCs; paras. 137-138; note: CCs in a cell group; para. 92; note: BWPs in a CC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one processor and the memory further configured to: receive a configuration of a CC list for cross-CC activation of the joint DL and UL TCI state, wherein the at least one processor and the memory apply the joint DL and UL TCI state to each CC comprised in the CC list, wherein the CC list comprises a dedicated CC list for the cross-CC activation of the joint DL and UL TCI state, and wherein the CC list is for the cross-CC activation of a DL TCI state or an UL TCI state in the invention of Rahman ‘807 in view of Yang. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, provide reduced signaling for TCI state assignment as is known in the art (Rahman ‘979, paras. 92, 137-138 and 143; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 17-22, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 5-10, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462