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 .
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 1-5, 8-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echigo et al PG PUB 2025/0158790 in view of Farag et al PG PUB 2022/0210781.
Re Claims 1, 9 and 17, Echigo et all teaches in figure 6, a UE (a wireless device; a processor and a memory; non-transitory CRM;) for receiving a DCI indicating common beam TCI state based on a unified TCI scheme [0083]; transmitting a PUCCH HARQ- ACK indicating a success or failure of the DCI [0139]; after K symbols or BAT (a time offset value) starting at the last symbol of the HARQ-ACK (after transmitting the acknowledgement) applying the one or more unified TCI states as indicated with the TCI codepoint in the DCI [0153]. Echigo et al fails to explicitly teach "the time offset value is determined based on a quantity of the one or more unified TCI states". However, Farag et al teaches the figure 13 Beam indication of a single TCI with activation time and Beam indication of N TCI states with activation time for each [0173-0174]. By combining the teachings, the one or more unified TCI states in Echigo et al can be adaptive to single activation time and multiple activation times based on N TCI states (quantity of one or more unified TCI states). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to adaptive to different BAT values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 10, 18, Echigo et al teaches in figure 8, a mapping table associating the TCI codepoints (one or more unified TCI states) to BAT values (the time offsets) [0259] whereby a MAC CE (command) can indicate the mapping [0269]. Re Claims 3, 11, 19, Echigo et al figure 8 teaches one to one mapping between the TCI codepoints and BAT values.
Re Claims 4, 12, 20, Echigo et al teaches common TCI states can be joint or - separate TCI states [0085]. Re Claims 5, 13, Echigo et al teachdes applying the one or more unified TCI to the downlink or uplink from a first slot after the BAT (the time offset value) from an end of transmitting the HARQ-ACK of the DCI [0139]. Re Claims 8, 16, Echigo et al teaches a TRP for downlink and uplink [0067].
Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echigo et al PG PUB 2025/0158790 in view of Farag et al PG PUB 2022/0210781 as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Zhu et al PG PUB 2023/0199764.
Re Claims 6, 14, Echigo et al teaches fails to explicitly teach determining one or more spatial domain filter based on the one or more unified TCI states. However, Zhu et al teaches a UE determining the spatial domain filter based on the unified TCI states as defined in Rel. 17 [0684]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have determined the spatial domain filter to be consistent with the known Rel. 17 standard. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have determined the spatial domain filter as defined in the known standard.
Re Claims 7, 15, Zhu et al teaches the determined spatial domain filter is based on the downlink or uplink.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Claims 1, 9 and 17, Applicant argues Farag fails to disclose or suggest “…. wherein the time offset is determined based on a quantity of the one or more unified TCI states.”.
Examiner disagrees.
Farag teaches in figure 13, 1300 a beam indication of a single TCI state with activation time. A single TCI state is “a quantity of one unified TCI state” which is associated with an activation time T or the determined time offset [0171]. This alone reads on “the determining the offset value based on the quantity of the one unified TCI state” as claimed.
Farag also teaches in figure 13, a beam indication of N TCI states with activation time for each. For example, if the beam indication indicates two TCI states, a quantity of 2 unified TCI states, then each TCI states are activated corresponding to the respective activation times such as T0 and T1.
When the beam indication DCI indicates 2 TCI states or 2 unified TCI states, the determines offset for the unified TCI states are T0 and T1 which is different when a single unified TCI state is activated.
Hence, “the time offset value is determined based on a quantity of the one or more unified TCI states.”.
In light of Applicant spec., the time offset value is determined based on the application time of unified TCI state as indicated by DCI in (PARA 0258) and in fig. 20, the wireless device determines a time offset from a plurality of time offset values based on a quantity of unified TCI states(s) indicated by DCI.
This is consistent with Farag whereby in figure 13, the beam indication DCI indicates N TCI state with activation time for each. When the DCI indicates N=1, a single unified TCI state is indicated in the DCI whereby the UE in Farag determines the time offset based on the activation time associated with the single TCI state.
When the DCI indicates N=2, one or more unified TCI states, the time offset is based on T0 and T1 which is different from the time offset from the single unified TCI state.
Applicant is requested to argue this point in the next response.
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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475