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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the 102 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/05/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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 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 1-8, 13-20 and 25-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag et al (US Publication No. 2022/0061056 A1)1 in view of Matsumura et al (US Publication No. 2023/0115642 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Farag discloses, a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158, a method of wireless communication of UE for UL and DL communication with gNB], comprising:
receiving radio resource control (RRC) signaling [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0162, in step 1101, the configuration of TCI states can be by RRC configuration. The TCI states may be further updated by RRC signaling] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638);
determining that a first beam indication scheme is enabled [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, UE is configured/indicated with a joint TCI state indicating both UL and DL beam indication; further see ¶0390, in one-sub-method 1B, the component B and C are empty and J-TCI comprises only one component A (i.e., first beam indication scheme). Hence, UL and DL beam indication is joint via DL-TCK=UL-TCI=J-TCI=A; further see ¶0154 and 0163, see steps 1101 and 1102; note that determining of the joint TCI state as configured as above is implicit] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638);
determining that a second beam indication scheme is not enabled based on the first beam indication scheme being enabled [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, UE is configured/indicated with a joint TCI state indicating both UL and DL beam indication; further see ¶0389, in one-sub-method 1A, the component A is empty and J-TCI comprises two components (B,C) (i.e., second beam indication scheme); further see ¶0401, only one of the above sub-embodiments (1A through 1E) is used/supported to indicate/configure J-TCI; note that if one of the sub-embodiments is enabled, the other one is disabled; further see ¶0154 and 0163, see steps 1101 and 1102; note that determining of the joint TCI state as configured as above is implicit] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638); and
applying the first beam indication scheme to determine one or more of an uplink (UL) beam or a downlink (DL) beam for communication with a base station [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, UE is configured/indicated with a joint TCI state indicating both UL and DL beam indication; further see ¶0170-0171, see steps 1105-1106; note that applying of the joint TCI state as configured as above to determine UL or DL beam for communication with gNB is implicit] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Although Farag discloses, “receiving radio resource control (RRC) signaling” as set forth above, Farag does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Matsumura discloses,
the RRC signaling includes an RRC flag that indicates a first beam indication scheme is enabled [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0302, the new RRC parameter (a MAC default TCI state enabler, for example, enablerMACDefaultTCIstate_r17) may be an enabler of the default TCI state; further see ¶0303, the new RRC parameter (a default spatial relation enabler, for example, enablerDefaultSpatialRelation_r17) may be an enabler of a new operation of the default spatial relation/default PL-RS; further see ¶0304, the new RRC parameter (a default spatial relation enabler, for example, enablerDefaultSpatialRelation r17) is configured. The new RRC parameter may be an enabler of a new operation of the default spatial relation/default PL-RS that follows the default TCI state; note that given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “RRC flag” can be interpreted as any types of fields or parameters in RRC (i.e., RRC parameters of Matsumura)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Farag with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Matsumura to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Matsumura into the system of Farag would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling user equipment whether beam indication is supported, improving signaling efficiency avoiding unnecessary procedures when the feature is not enabled, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the UE determines that the second beam indication scheme is not enabled [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, 0389 and 0390, the one-sub-method 1A where the component A is empty and J-TCI comprises two components (B,C) (i.e., second beam indication scheme) is not enabled] based on a conflict between the first beam indication scheme and the second beam indication scheme [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0401, only one of the above sub-embodiments (1A through 1E) is used/supported to indicate/configure J-TCI referring to ¶0383, 0389 and 0390; note that the one-sub-method 1B where the component B and C are empty and J-TCI comprises only one component A (i.e., first beam indication scheme) conflicts with the one-sub-method 1A where the component A is empty and J-TCI comprises two components (B,C) (i.e., second beam indication scheme)] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 3, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the UE determines that the second beam indication scheme is not enabled [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, 0389 and 0390, the one-sub-method 1A where the component A is empty and J-TCI comprises two components (B,C) (i.e., second beam indication scheme) is not enabled] based on a relation rule between the first beam indication scheme and the second beam indication scheme [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0401, only one of the above sub-embodiments (1A through 1E) is used/supported to indicate/configure J-TCI referring to ¶0383, 0389 and 0390; note that the one-sub-method 1B where the component B and C are empty and J-TCI comprises only one component A (i.e., first beam indication scheme) has a relation rule with the one-sub-method 1A where the component A is empty and J-TCI comprises two components (B,C) (i.e., second beam indication scheme), and the relation rule is that both the indication schemes cannot exist in the J-TCI] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 4, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, receiving an indication from the base station indicating that the first beam indication scheme is enabled [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; see ¶0388 “at least one of the following sub-embodiments can be used (to indicate/configure J-TCI) by the gNB or network (NW) with respect to ¶0383; note that in order to indicate or configure the J-TCI by the gNB, it is required for the gNB to transmit an indication to the UE], wherein the UE determines that the first beam indication scheme is enabled based on the indication [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0390, in one-sub-method 1B, the component B and C are empty and J-TCI comprises only one component A (i.e., first beam indication scheme). Hence, UL and DL beam indication is joint via DL-TCK=UL-TCI=J-TCI=A; further see ¶0154 and 0163, see steps 1101 and 1102; note that determining of the joint TCI state as configured as above is implicit] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 5, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the UE determines that the first beam indication scheme is enabled based on a configuration of one or more beam indication [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0390, in one-sub-method 1B, the component B and C are empty and J-TCI comprises only one component A (i.e., first beam indication scheme). Hence, UL and DL beam indication is joint via DL-TCK=UL-TCI=J-TCI=A; further see ¶0154 and 0163, see steps 1101 and 1102; note that the above-mentioned disclosure of Farag requires a configuration of the joint TCI state to the one-sub-method 1B where the component B and C are empty or the one-sub-method 1A where the component A is empty and determining of the joint TCI state as configured as above is implicit] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 6, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the UE determines that the first beam indication scheme is enabled based on an activation of one or more beam indication [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0390, in one-sub-method 1B, the component B and C are empty and J-TCI comprises only one component A (i.e., first beam indication scheme). Hence, UL and DL beam indication is joint via DL-TCK=UL-TCI=J-TCI=A; further see ¶0154 and 0163, see steps 1101 and 1102; note that the above-mentioned disclosure of Farag requires an activation of one of the one-sub-method 1B where the component B and C are empty or the one-sub-method 1A where the component A is empty and determining of the joint TCI state as configured as above is implicit] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 7, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the first beam indication scheme includes one of: a joint DL and UL transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state indication scheme [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, UE is configured/indicated with a joint TCI state indicating both UL and DL beam indication; further see ¶0390, in one-sub-method 1B, the component B and C are empty and J-TCI comprises only one component A (i.e., first beam indication scheme). Hence, UL and DL beam indication is joint via DL-TCK=UL-TCI=J-TCI=A; further see ¶0154 and 0163, see steps 1101 and 1102] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 8, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the second beam indication scheme includes one of:
a downlink TCI state indication scheme, an uplink TCI state indication scheme [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, UE is configured/indicated with a joint TCI state indicating both UL and DL beam indication; further see ¶0389, in one-sub-method 1A, the component A is empty and J-TCI comprises two components (B,C) (i.e., second beam indication scheme). Hence, UL and DL beam indication is separate via DL-TCI=B and UL-TCI=C, since there is no common component (A) indicated/configured to the UE; further see ¶0154 and 0163, see steps 1101 and 1102] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 13, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, a method of wireless communication of a base station [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158, a method of wireless communication of gNB for UL and DL communication], comprising:
indicating to a user equipment (UE), that a first beam indication scheme is enabled [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, UE is configured/indicated with a joint TCI state indicating both UL and DL beam indication; further see ¶0390, in one-sub-method 1B, the component B and C are empty and J-TCI comprises only one component A (i.e., first beam indication scheme). Hence, UL and DL beam indication is joint via DL-TCK=UL-TCI=J-TCI=A; further see ¶0388, “at least one of the following sub-embodiments can be used (to indicate/configure J-TCI) by the gNB or network (NW)”; further see ¶0154 and 0163, see steps 1101 and 1102; note that determining of the joint TCI state as configured as above is implicit] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638), wherein enablement of the first beam indication scheme further indicates that a second beam indication scheme is not enabled [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, 0389 and 0390, the one-sub-method 1A where the component A is empty and J-TCI comprises two components (B,C) (i.e., second beam indication scheme) is not enabled; further see ¶0401, only one of the above sub-embodiments (1A through 1E) is used/supported to indicate/configure J-TCI referring to ¶0383, 0389 and 0390)] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638)]; and
applying the first beam indication scheme to activate one or more of an uplink (UL) beam or a downlink (DL) beam for communication with the UE [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383, UE is configured/indicated with a joint TCI state indicating both UL and DL beam indication; further see ¶0170-0171, see steps 1105-1106; note that applying of the joint TCI state as configured as above to determine UL or DL beam for communication with gNB is implicit] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 25, Farag discloses, an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158, user equipment (UE)], comprising:
a memory [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158; note that every UE has at least one memory]; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158; note that every UE has at least processor coupled to the memory storing instructions to perform actions].
Since claim 25 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 25 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the apparatus of claim 25 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158; note that every UE has at least one transceiver to transmit and receive signals].
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 32, Farag discloses, an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158, gNB], comprising:
a memory [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158; note that every gNB has at least one memory]; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158; note that every gNB has at least processor coupled to the memory storing instructions to perform actions].
Since claim 32 recites similar features to claim 13 without further additional features, claim 32 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 13.
Regarding claim 33, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the apparatus of claim 32 as set forth above.
Farag discloses, a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0383 and ¶0153-0158; note that every UE has at least one transceiver to transmit and receive signals].
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 38, claim 37 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0312485 A1) [¶0102].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Farag claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/070,638 filed on 08/26/2020, thus Farag is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 09/09/2020.
Prosecution Insights