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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 06/29/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least reasons as set forth below.
On page 12 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
The Office Action admits that Farag does not disclose "an RRC flag that indicates a first beam indication scheme is enabled" and cites Matsumura to cure the deficiency in Farag. See Office Action at page 5. However, the "RRC parameter" cited in Matsumura is "an enabler of the defaults TCI state [or] ... default spatial relation/default PL-RS." See paragraphs [0302]-[0304] of Matsumura. Thus, neither Farag nor Matsumura disclose or suggest "determining whether a joint downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state indication scheme is enabled based on the RRC flag," as in amended claim 1 (emphasis added). Matsumura does not disclose a "joint DL and UL TCI indication scheme" whatsoever. In connection with dependent claim 7, paragraph [0383] of Farag is cited for "a joint TCI state indicating both UL and DL beam indication." However, the indication in paragraph [0383] is for the "TCI state" itself and not an "RRC flag" that enables a "joint downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state indication scheme," as in amended claim 1. Furthermore, as the "RRC parameter" in Matsumura does not enable the UE to determine whether a "joint DL and UL TCI indication scheme" is enabled, neither Farag nor Matsumura discloses or suggests "communicating with a base station on one or more of an UL beam or a L beam based on the activation of the TCI state and a determination of whether the joint DL and UL TCI state indication scheme is enabled from the RRC flag," as in amended claim 1 (emphasis added).
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In order to establish prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, Matsumura is only applied to cure deficiencies of Farag for “RRC flag” included in a RRC message for indicating a particular TCI state indication scheme”, not for “RRC flag indicating whether a joint DL and UL TCI state indication scheme” since Farag already clearly discloses, the joint DL and UL TCI state indication scheme as one of TCI state indication schemes” [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)], as set forth above.
On page 13 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Applicant submits independent claim 1, and similarly independent claims 13, 25, and 32, are allowable.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claims 13, 25 and 32 recite similar features to claim 1 without further patentable features, claims 13, 25 and 32 are unpatentable in view of the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
On page 13, Applicant argued:
The dependent claims are dependent on their respective base claims and therefore include all of the features of their respective base claims and additional features therein. As such, these claims are also allowable based upon their respective base claims and the additional features therein.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claims 1, 13, 25 and 32 are unpatentable over the cited references of record as set forth above, patentability of other dependent claims should be determined based on the claimed limitations recited thereon, rather than their respective independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6, 18, 28-29 and 36 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 5 recites, “-- UL TCL --” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “-- UL TCI --” for more clarity. Claims 6, 18, 28-29 and 36 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 13-16, 18-20, 25-34 and 36-40 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, wherein the RRC signaling includes . . . indicates one of a first beam indication [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; further see ¶0154, the configuration of the TCI states provided by gNB includes a joint TCI state; further see ¶0401, multiple sub-embodiments are supported, and one of the supported sub-embodiments is indicated/configured to the UE via either higher layer (e.g., RRC)] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638);
determining whether a joint downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state 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., joint TCI DL and UL TCI 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) based on the RRC . . . [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; further see ¶0401 with respect to ¶0162, multiple sub-embodiments are supported, and one of the supported sub-embodiments is indicated/configured to the UE via either higher layer (e.g., RRC)] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638);
receiving a message that indicates an activation of a TCI state [¶0165, receive an MAC CE message activating M TCI state code points (step 1103)]; and
communicating with a base station on one or more of an UL beam or a DL beam [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0170-0171, the UE and the gNB can determine the spatial filters to use for the DL channels and the UL channels and applies the determined spatial filters for reception/transmission of the UL and DL channel] based on the activation of the TCI state [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0170, based on the TCI state code points indicated in the DCI for TCI state indication or the MAC CE; further see ¶0165, note that the MAC CE indicates activation of M TCI state code points] and a determination of whether the joint DL and UL TCI state indication scheme is enabled from the RRC . . . [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; further see ¶0154 with respect to ¶0401 and 0383, receiving the configuration of joint TCI state and determining the enablement of the joint TCI state based on the RRC (see ¶0401) is used for reception and transmission of DL and/or UL channel by the UE with gNB] (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), the RRC signaling is modified to be RRC signaling includes an RRC “flag”, and the RRC signaling includes an RRC flag that indicates that one of a first beam indication scheme is enabled.
However, Matsumura discloses, the RRC signaling includes an RRC flag that indicates that one of 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 and particularly, “the RRC flag indicates the first beam indication scheme is enabled” 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 and particularly, “the RRC flag indicates the first beam indication scheme is enabled” 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 and particularly, “the RRC flag indicates the first beam indication scheme is enabled” as set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 4 and particularly “the RRC flag that enables the joint DL and UL TCI state indication scheme” as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the UE determines that a DL TCI state indication scheme or an UL TCI state indication scheme is not enabled based on the RRC . . . that enables the joint DL and UL 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 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); 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).
Regarding claim 6, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the method of claim 1 and particularly, “RRC flag (indicating a TCI indication scheme)” as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the RRC . . . indicates that at least one of a DL TCL state indication scheme and an UL TCI state indication scheme is enabled [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; further see ¶0154, the configuration of the TCI states provided by gNB includes a DL TCI state or a UL TCI state; further see ¶0401, multiple sub-embodiments are supported, and one of the supported sub-embodiments is indicated/configured to the UE via either higher layer (e.g., RRC)] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638), and the UE determines that the joint DL and UL TCI state indication scheme is not 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., DL or UL TCI state 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; 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] (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: the joint DL and UL 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 a different one of: the downlink TCI state indication scheme, the 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]
Since claim 13 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 13 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
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 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 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.
Regarding claim 39, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the apparatus of claim 27 and particularly, “RRC flag (indicating a TCI indication scheme)” as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the message activates the TCI state [¶0165, receive an MAC CE message activating M TCI state code points (step 1103)], and and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 27]:
apply the TCI state to both the UL beam and the DL beam based on RRC. . . . that enables the joint DCL and UL TCI state indication scheme [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; further see ¶0154 with respect to ¶0401 and 0383, receiving the configuration of joint TCI state and determining the enablement of the joint TCI state based on the RRC (see ¶0401) is used for reception and transmission of DL and/or UL channel by the UE with gNB] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638).
Regarding claim 39, Farag in view of Matsumura discloses, the apparatus of claim 29 “RRC flag (indicating a TCI indication scheme)” as set forth above.
Farag discloses, wherein the message activates the TCI state [¶0165, receive an MAC CE message activating M TCI state code points (step 1103)], and and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 27]:
apply the TCI state to one of the UL beam or the DL beam based on the RRC . . . [¶0154 with respect to ¶0401 and 0383, receiving the configuration of DL or UL TCI state and determining the enablement of the DL or UL TCI based on the RRC (see ¶0401) is used for reception and transmission of DL and/or UL channel by the UE with gNB] (see also, e.g., pages 25-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638) that does not enable the joint DCL and UL 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., DL or UL TCI state 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; 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] (see also, e.g., pages 26-27 of US Prov. App. No. 63/070,638)
Conclusion
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.
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