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 .
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 4/14/2026.
Claims 1, 9-10, 13-16, 18, and 20 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled. Claims 21-25 were cancelled previously.
No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 4/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 14-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 9-13, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended and requests that the objection to the claims be withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 9 has been amended to recite “updating, based on the obtained information, which at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is to be representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs, for use in signalling the sequence of TCI states for the reference signal burst.” However, such “for use” claim language is typically interpreted as indicating an intended future use and not as explicitly requiring actual usage “in signalling the sequence of TCI states for the reference signal burst.” Claim 9 as amended thus does not explicitly require actual transmission using the updated TCI state(s). It is thus still unclear if “updating” of “which at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is to be representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs” is intended to require actual transmission using the updated TCI state(s), or if performing transmission using the updated TCI state(s) is outside of the scope of such claim language. Claim 9 is thus still indefinite. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that Ji does not teach “wherein at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states is representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from a first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from a second TRP of the TRPs.” Applicant asserts that Ji does not clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed signalling of a sequence of TCI states defined for a reference signal burst, wherein at least one TCI state in the sequence is representative of a jointly transmitted reference signal from a first TRP and a second TRP, nor does Ji disclose the claimed dynamic updating of which TCI state in the sequence is representative of such jointly transmitted signal in the manner recited in amended independent claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. 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). As can also be seen in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below, Khoshnevisan was used to teach “signalling, towards user equipment being served by the network node, a sequence of TCI states defined for a reference signal burst in which the reference signals are to be transmitted from the TRPs.” However, Applicant appears to argue that Ji does not teach “the claimed signalling of a sequence of TCI states defined for a reference signal burst.” Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dynamic updating of which TCI state in the sequence is representative of such jointly transmitted signal”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With regard to the teachings of the prior art, Khoshnevisan teaches that (see, e.g., at least step 820 of Fig. 8) the multi-TRP BS may transmit a control message to the UE 115 including a joint CSI reporting configuration that may indicate multiple transmission configuration indication (TCI) states to be applied by the TRP 805 and the TRP 810 (Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]). As can be seen in at least step 825 of Fig. 8, the TRPs may transmit two or more reference signals based on the control message, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a reference signal burst (Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]). The multi-TRP BS may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as signalling, towards user equipment being served by the network node, a sequence of TCI states defined for a reference signal burst in which the reference signals are to be transmitted from the TRPs. Ji teaches that (see, e.g., Fig. 20) one TCI state may be generated for reference signals jointly transmitted from two TRPs by appropriately synthesizing two or more different TCI states or two or more different QCL assumptions (Ji; Fig. 20; [0407]-[0408]). At least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from a first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from a second TRP of the TRPs. Ji may thus be interpreted as teaching “wherein at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states is representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from a first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from a second TRP of the TRPs.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 13, the claim has been amended to recite “wherein said updating is performed [[only]] when an amount of data traffic between the TRPs and the user equipment is below a data traffic amount threshold value.” Claim 13 has thus been broadened such that said updating may be performed when an amount of data traffic between the TRPs and the user equipment is not below a data traffic amount threshold value. However, page 17 lines 6-11 of Applicant’s appears to be the only portion of Applicant’s specification discussing “a data traffic amount threshold value,” and such a portion of Applicant’s specification recites “the updating in step S108 is performed only when amount of data traffic between the TRPs 140a, 140b and the user equipment 300a, 300b is below a data traffic amount threshold value.” Applicant’s specification thus does not appear to support performing the claimed “updating” when an amount of data traffic between the TRPs and the user equipment is not below a data traffic amount threshold value. Claim 13 as amended thus has broader scope than the support provided by Applicant’s specification. Claim 13 thus contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-13 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. Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “updating, based on the obtained information, which at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is to be representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs, for use in signalling the sequence of TCI states for the reference signal burst.” As was also discussed in the response to arguments above, such “for use” claim language is typically interpreted as indicating an intended future use and not as explicitly requiring actual usage “in signalling the sequence of TCI states for the reference signal burst.” Claim 9 as amended thus does not explicitly require actual transmission using the updated TCI state(s). It is thus unclear if “updating” of “which at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is to be representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs” is intended to require actual transmission using the updated TCI state(s), or if performing transmission using the updated TCI state(s) is outside of the scope of such claim language. Claim 9 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “updating, based on the obtained information, which at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is to be representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs” as not requiring transmission because no transmission is explicitly recited. Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the information is obtained from the user equipment as the feedback reports comprising reference signal received power (RSRP) values of the reference signal.” However, the claim limitation “the feedback reports” lacks antecedent basis and is therefore unclear. Such language is also grammatically unclear. For instance, it is unclear if such claim language is intended to require that the information comprises RSRP values obtained from previously unrecited feedback reports, or if some other interpretation is intended. Claim 10 is thus indefinite. Regarding claims 10-13, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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 (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2023/0328569, Khoshnevisan hereinafter) in view of Ji et al. (US 2023/0239103, Ji hereinafter). Regarding claim 1, Khoshnevisan teaches a method for signalling Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) states, the method being performed by a network node (Base station (BS); Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2; [0148]), the network node being configured to control transmission of reference signals from at least two Transmission and Reception Points (TRPs) (As can be seen in at least Fig. 2 and its corresponding description, the BS is described as potentially controlling transmission of reference signals from two transmission reception points (TRPs); Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2; [0143], [0148]), the method comprising: signalling, towards user equipment being served by the network node, a sequence of TCI states defined for a reference signal burst in which the reference signals are to be transmitted from the TRPs (As can be seen in at least step 820 of Fig. 8 and its corresponding description, the multi-TRP BS may transmit a control message to the UE 115 including a joint CSI reporting configuration that may indicate multiple transmission configuration indication (TCI) states to be applied by the TRP 805 and the TRP 810. As can be seen in at least step 825 of Fig. 8, the TRPs may transmit two or more reference signals based on the control message, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a reference signal burst. The multi-TRP BS may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as signalling, towards user equipment being served by the network node, a sequence of TCI states defined for a reference signal burst in which the reference signals are to be transmitted from the TRPs; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]); and initiating transmission of the reference signal burst from the TRPs (As can be seen in at least step 825 of Fig. 8, the TRPs may transmit two or more reference signals based on the control message, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising initiating transmission of the reference signal burst from the TRPs; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]). However, Khoshnevisan does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states is representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from a first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from a second TRP of the TRPs. Ji teaches wherein at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states is representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from a first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from a second TRP of the TRPs (As can be seen in at least Fig. 20 and its corresponding description, one TCI state may be generated for reference signals jointly transmitted from two TRPs by appropriately synthesizing two or more different TCI states or two or more different QCL assumptions. At least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from a first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from a second TRP of the TRPs; Ji; Fig. 20; [0407]-[0408]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ji regarding TCI state configuration with the teachings as in Khoshnevisan regarding TCI state configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by reducing a reference signal transmission burden via TCI or/and QCL emulation (Ji; Fig. 20; [0405]). Regarding claim 2, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 1. Khoshnevisan further teaches the reference signals in the reference signal burst from each of the TRPs are transmitted during a beam sweep performed in a set of beamforms, and wherein in each beam sweep the reference signals are sequentially transmitted, one reference signal per beamform in the set of beamforms (Reference signals are described as potentially being transmitted using beam sweeping techniques. The reference signals in the reference signal burst from each of the TRPs may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being transmitted during a beam sweep performed in a set of beamforms, and wherein in each beam sweep the reference signals are sequentially transmitted, one reference signal per beamform in the set of beamforms; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]). Regarding claim 3, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 1. Khoshnevisan further teaches at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states is representative of that one of the reference signals is to be transmitted from only one of the TRPs (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3 and its corresponding description, different TRPs may use different TCI states for transmission of reference signals; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0150], [0177]-[0180], [0212]-[0214]). Regarding claim 4, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 1. Ji further teaches which one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on beamforms from the first TRP of the TRPs and beamforms from the second TRP of the TRPs is configured based on manual input (Reference signals transmitted jointly via at least one TCI state as in at least Fig. 20 may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being configured based on manual input (e.g., by configuration of parameters such as those in at least Tables 11 and 33-34). Which one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on beamforms from the first TRP of the TRPs and beamforms from the second TRP of the TRPs may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being configured based on manual input; Ji; Fig. 20; Tables 11 and 33-34; [0407]-[0408], [0419]-[0422]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ji regarding TCI state configuration with the teachings as in Khoshnevisan regarding TCI state configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by reducing a reference signal transmission burden via TCI or/and QCL emulation (Ji; Fig. 20; [0405]). Regarding claim 5, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 1. Ji further teaches which one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on beamforms from the first TRP of the TRPs and beamforms from the second TRP of the TRPs is configured based on statistics obtained from measurements of radio propagation conditions between the TRPs and the user equipment (The joint reference signal transmission using one TCI state generated from two or more different TCI states or two or more different QCL assumptions is described as being based at least on measurement information. Which one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on beamforms from the first TRP of the TRPs and beamforms from the second TRP of the TRPs may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being configured based on statistics obtained from measurements of radio propagation conditions between the TRPs and the user equipment; Ji; Fig. 20; Tables 11 and 33-34; [0407]-[0408], [0417]-[0422]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ji regarding TCI state configuration with the teachings as in Khoshnevisan regarding TCI state configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by reducing a reference signal transmission burden via TCI or/and QCL emulation (Ji; Fig. 20; [0405]). Regarding claim 6, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 1. Khoshnevisan further teaches obtaining information of radio propagation conditions between the TRPs and the user equipment (As can be seen in at least steps 830-835 of Fig. 8, the UE may generate and transmit a joint CSI report to the TRPs, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising obtaining information of radio propagation conditions between the TRPs and the user equipment; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0215]-[0216]). Regarding claim 7, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 6. Khoshnevisan further teaches the information is obtained from the user equipment as feedback reports of the reference signals when having been transmitted in the reference signal burst (As can be seen in at least steps 830-835 of Fig. 8, the UE may generate and transmit a joint CSI report to the TRPs, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising information that is obtained from the user equipment as feedback reports of the reference signals when having been transmitted in the reference signal burst; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0215]-[0216]). Regarding claim 8, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 6. Khoshnevisan further teaches the information is obtained from uplink measurements of the radio propagation conditions (As can be seen in at least steps 830-835 of Fig. 8, the UE may generate and transmit a joint CSI report to the TRPs, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising information that is obtained from uplink measurements of the radio propagation conditions. Additionally, a joint CSI report transmitted in the uplink direction may also be broadly reasonably interpreted as uplink measurements; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0215]-[0216]). Regarding claim 9, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 6. Ji further teaches updating, based on the obtained information, which at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is to be representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs, for use in signalling the sequence of TCI states for the reference signal burst (The joint reference signal transmission using one TCI state generated from two or more different TCI states or two or more different QCL assumptions is described as being based at least on measurement information. The TRPs may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as updating, based on the obtained information, which at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is to be representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs. As was also discussed above, such “for use” claim language is being interpreted as reciting a future intended use and not as explicitly requiring such use; Ji; Fig. 20; Tables 11 and 33-34; [0407]-[0408], [0417]-[0422]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ji regarding TCI state configuration with the teachings as in Khoshnevisan regarding TCI state configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by reducing a reference signal transmission burden via TCI or/and QCL emulation (Ji; Fig. 20; [0405]). Regarding claim 13, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 9. Ji further teaches said updating is performed when an amount of data traffic between the TRPs and the user equipment is below a data traffic amount threshold value (Ex Parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847 (P.T.A.B. April 29, 2016) states the following regarding conditional limitations (e.g., “when” conditional limitations): “[a]lthough claim 11 recites functions that are substantially similar to the steps recited in the method of claim 1, as noted supra, claim 11 is directed to a system. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. This interpretation of the system claim differs from the method claim because the structure (i.e., a processor programmed to perform an algorithm for carrying out the recited function should the recited condition be met) is present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.” Such conditional “when” claim language in method claim 13 may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as optional and thus as not being required. The joint reference signal transmission using one TCI state generated from two or more different TCI states or two or more different QCL assumptions is described as being based at least on measurement information. The TRPs may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as updating, based on the obtained information, which at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is to be representative of one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on a beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on a beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs; Ji; Fig. 20; Tables 11 and 33-34; [0407]-[0408], [0417]-[0422]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ji regarding TCI state configuration with the teachings as in Khoshnevisan regarding TCI state configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by reducing a reference signal transmission burden via TCI or/and QCL emulation (Ji; Fig. 20; [0405]). Regarding claim 14, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 1. Khoshnevisan further teaches the sequence of TCI states represents a sequence of spatial filters to be used by the user equipment for reception of the reference signals (The sequence of TCI states may be broadly reasonably interpreted as representing a sequence of spatial filters to be used by the user equipment for reception of the reference signals; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]). Regarding claim 15, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 14. Khoshnevisan further teaches each spatial filter corresponds to a directional beam (Each of the TCI states may be broadly reasonably interpreted as representing spatial filter that corresponds to a directional beam; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]). Ji further teaches wherein said at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is representative of said one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on the beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on the beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs represents a spatial filter corresponding to a directional beam that is wider than a directional beam corresponding to a spatial filter of any TCI state in the sequence of TCI states that is representative of that the reference signal is to be transmitted from only one of the TRPs (As can be seen in at least Fig. 20 and its corresponding description, one TCI state may be generated for reference signals jointly transmitted from two TRPs by appropriately synthesizing two or more different TCI states or two or more different QCL assumptions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a single TCI state generated from two TCI states for joint transmission from two differently located TRPs represents a spatial filter corresponding to a directional beam that would be wider than other beams used by individual TRPs (e.g., at least the two initial TCI states used to generate the single TCI state). The at least one of the TCI states in the sequence of TCI states that is representative of said one of the reference signals to be jointly transmitted on the beamform from the first TRP of the TRPs and on the beamform from the second TRP of the TRPs may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as representing a spatial filter corresponding to a directional beam that is wider than a directional beam corresponding to a spatial filter of any TCI state in the sequence of TCI states that is representative of that the reference signal is to be transmitted from only one of the TRPs; Ji; Fig. 20; [0407]-[0408]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ji regarding TCI state configuration with the teachings as in Khoshnevisan regarding TCI state configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by reducing a reference signal transmission burden via TCI or/and QCL emulation (Ji; Fig. 20; [0405]). Regarding claim 16, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 1. Ji further teaches each of the reference signals is a synchronization signal burst (SSB) (Reference signals may include SSBs; Ji; Fig. 20; Tables 11, 20-21, and 33-34; [0062], [0274], [0301], [0308], [0315]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ji regarding TCI state configuration with the teachings as in Khoshnevisan regarding TCI state configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by reducing a reference signal transmission burden via TCI or/and QCL emulation (Ji; Fig. 20; [0405]). Regarding claim 17, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 16. Ji further teaches each TCI state in the sequence of TCI states corresponds to a respective index, as given by an ssb-PositionsInBurst value, in the reference signal burst (SSBs are described as being indicated by an SSB-Index, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as an ssb-PositionsInBurst value without more description regarding what specifically an ssb-PositionsInBurst value entails; Ji; Fig. 20; Tables 11, 20, 23 and 33-34; [0122], [0274], [0310]-[0313], [0422]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ji regarding TCI state configuration with the teachings as in Khoshnevisan regarding TCI state configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by reducing a reference signal transmission burden via TCI or/and QCL emulation (Ji; Fig. 20; [0405]). Regarding claim 18, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 1. Khoshnevisan further teaches each of the reference signals is a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) (The reference signals may be CSI-RSs; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]). Regarding claim 19, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 18. Khoshnevisan further teaches the reference signal burst is to be transmitted as part of either a beam management process for the user equipment, or one of the reference signals of the burst is to be transmitted as part of a link adaptation process for the user equipment (At least the process depicted in Fig. 8 involving transmission of a reference signal burst may be broadly reasonably interpreted as both a beam management process for the UE or a link adaptation process for the UE; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0212]-[0214]). Regarding claim 20, Khoshnevisan and Ji teach the limitations of claim 19. Khoshnevisan further teaches each TCI state in the sequence of TCI states corresponds to a respective sequence of channel state information reference signal resource indicators (CRIs) in the reference signal burst (CSI reporting is described as potentially including a CSI resource indicator (CRI) field. Each TCI state in the sequence of TCI states may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as corresponding to a respective sequence of channel state information reference signal resource indicators, CRIs, in the reference signal burst; Khoshnevisan; Figs. 1-2 and 8; [0143], [0148], [0159], [0212]-[0214]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Examiner would like to note that such allowability is subject to change depending on any changes in scope introduced on amendment to resolve the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues described above.
Conclusion
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 ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights