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 Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 6/25/2026. The communication has been entered and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan et al. “Khoshnevisan” US 2023/0031429 in view of Lo et al. “Lo” US 2022/0256571.
Regarding claim 1, Khoshnevisan teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, one or more messages indicating:
a first and second CORESETs (physical control channels can include multiple control regions (coresets); Paragraph 83),
two sounding reference signals (SRS) resource sets (Paragraph 119 teaches a first and second SRS resource set with respect to PUSCH), and
reporting two PHRs, for the two SRS sets is not configured (the UE only reports a single PHR value for the PUSCH transmission which overlap; Paragraph 126. As only one PHR is configured, this would mean two PHRs are not configured as claimed);
based on a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission associated with the first CORESET overlapping in time with a second PUSCH associated with a second CORESET, transmitting a PHR for the first PUSCH transmission (Paragraph 126 teaches multiple PUSCH repetitions which can overlap with a PUSCH carrying PHR. The PUSCH is a physical control channel which includes CORESETS; Paragraph 83. Thus the PUSCH are associated with CORESETs as claimed. Figure 6 shows that in response to the PUSCH repetitions, (630) a PHR report is transmit (635). It is known that wireless system resources are in time, frequency and power; Paragraph 2. The carriers refer to radio frequency spectrum resources used for communications; Paragraph 74. Paragraph 126 teaches multiple PUSCH repetitions which can overlap with a PUSCH carrying PHR).
Khoshnevisan does not expressly disclose multiple CORESET pool indexes; however, Lo teaches resource block indexes; Paragraph 284. Lo further teaches the use of a plurality of TCI states; Paragraph 89. This information can be used in the determination of power headroom information for overlapping PUSCH repetition transmissions; Paragraphs 125-130. Paragraphs 139-141 also teaches CORESETPoolIndex values.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Khoshnevisan to include the CORESET of Khoshnevisan to be a first and second CORESETPoolIndex as taught by Lo.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determined the power headroom information for overlapping PUSCH repetition transmissions; Paragraphs 125-130.
Regarding claim 2, Khoshnevisan teaches the first PUSCH transmission includes a plurality of frequency domain repetitions (Paragraph 126 teaches multiple PUSCH repetitions which can overlap with a PUSCH carrying PHR. It is known that wireless system resources are in time, frequency and power; Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 4, Khoshnevisan teaches one or more messages indicating reporting of two PHRs is not configured by indicating single power headroom mode is enabled (based on a resource allocation scheme, the UE may only report a single PHR value; Paragraph 126. A rule can also designate the use of a single PHR; Paragraph 136. The UE will receive RRC signaling indicating the UE to report a single PHR report/value; Paragraph 141. Thus one can see the UE receives a parameter indicating single power headroom as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Khoshnevisan teaches transmitting the PHR is based on the reporting of the two PHRs, two SRS sets not being configured (the UE only reports a single PHR value for the PUSCH transmission which overlap; Paragraph 126. As only one PHR is configured, this would mean two PHRs are not configured as claimed).
.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Khoshnevisan teaches a method comprising:
transmitting, by a base station, one or more messages indicating:
a first and second CORESETs (physical control channels can include multiple control regions (coresets); Paragraph 83),
two sounding reference signals (SRS) resource sets (Paragraph 119 teaches a first and second SRS resource set with respect to PUSCH), and
reporting two PHRs, for the two SRS sets is not configured (the UE only reports a single PHR value for the PUSCH transmission which overlap; Paragraph 126. As only one PHR is configured, this would mean two PHRs are not configured as claimed);
based on a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission associated with the first CORESET overlapping in time with a second PUSCH associated with a second CORESET, transmitting a PHR for the first PUSCH transmission (Paragraph 126 teaches multiple PUSCH repetitions which can overlap with a PUSCH carrying PHR. The PUSCH is a physical control channel which includes CORESETS; Paragraph 83. Thus the PUSCH are associated with CORESETs as claimed. Figure 6 shows that in response to the PUSCH repetitions, (630) a PHR report is transmit (635). It is known that wireless system resources are in time, frequency and power; Paragraph 2. The carriers refer to radio frequency spectrum resources used for communications; Paragraph 74. Paragraph 126 teaches multiple PUSCH repetitions which can overlap with a PUSCH carrying PHR).
Khoshnevisan does not expressly disclose multiple CORESET pool indexes; however, Lo teaches resource block indexes; Paragraph 284. Lo further teaches the use of a plurality of TCI states; Paragraph 89. This information can be used in the determination of power headroom information for overlapping PUSCH repetition transmissions; Paragraphs 125-130. Paragraphs 139-141 also teaches CORESETPoolIndex values.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Khoshnevisan to include the CORESET of Khoshnevisan to be a first and second CORESETPoolIndex as taught by Lo.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determined the power headroom information for overlapping PUSCH repetition transmissions; Paragraphs 125-130.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art teaches PHR tied to pool indexes; however, Khoshnevisan does not expressly disclose multiple CORESET pool indexes wherein the first index is lower than the second index. Lo teaches a first CORESETpool index can have a value of 0 and the second a value of 1; Paragraph 141.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Khoshnevisan to include the CORESET of Khoshnevisan to be a first and second CORESETPoolIndex wherein the first index is lower than the second as taught by Lo.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determined the power headroom information for overlapping PUSCH repetition transmissions; Paragraphs 125-130.
Regarding claim 10, Khoshnevisan teaches the first PUSCH transmission includes a plurality of frequency domain repetitions (Paragraph 126 teaches multiple PUSCH repetitions which can overlap with a PUSCH carrying PHR. It is known that wireless system resources are in time, frequency and power; Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 12, Khoshnevisan teaches one or more messages indicating reporting of two PHRs is not configured by indicating single power headroom mode is enabled (based on a resource allocation scheme, the UE may only report a single PHR value; Paragraph 126. A rule can also designate the use of a single PHR; Paragraph 136. The UE will receive RRC signaling indicating the UE to report a single PHR report/value; Paragraph 141. Thus one can see the UE receives a parameter indicating single power headroom as claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Khoshnevisan teaches transmitting the PHR is based on the reporting of the two PHRs, two SRS sets not being configured (the UE only reports a single PHR value for the PUSCH transmission which overlap; Paragraph 126. As only one PHR is configured, this would mean two PHRs are not configured as claimed)
Regarding claim 15, Khoshnevisan teaches a value in the PHR is determined using the pathloss reference signal corresponding to the repetition with a lowest index (the UE can determine the PHR value based on transmission settings which can include pathloss compensation values and a closed loop index; Paragraphs 145 and 193. The value of the closed loop index can be 0 (i.e. lowest state index among a plurality of state indexes); Paragraphs 148, 152, 154. Thus one can see pathloss information is used, with respect to a lowest index, in order to determine the PHR, see also 620/625 of Figure 6. The PHR report is transmit in the PUSCH repetitions (thus second PUSCH); 630 and 635 of Figure 6).
Khoshnevisan does not expressly disclose repetitions associated with a value of a TCI state index; however, Lo teaches resource block indexes; Paragraph 284. Paragraphs 216-220 disclose repetitions with respect to TCI states in time/frequency. Lo further teaches the use of a plurality of TCI states; Paragraph 89. This information can be used in the determination of power headroom information for overlapping PUSCH repetition transmissions; Paragraphs 125-130. Thus one can see repetitions are tied to TCI states and PHR values are based on/associated with TCI states as claimed. The claim does not define what “associated with a same value” means, thus because the TCI state values and repetitions are tied together they are viewed as “Associated with”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Khoshnevisan to include TCI indexes or resource block locations as taught by Lo.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determined the power headroom information for overlapping PUSCH repetition transmissions; Paragraphs 125-130.
Regarding claim 18, Khoshnevisan teaches one or more messages indicating reporting of two PHRs is not configured by indicating single power headroom mode is enabled (based on a resource allocation scheme, the UE may only report a single PHR value; Paragraph 126. A rule can also designate the use of a single PHR; Paragraph 136. The UE will receive RRC signaling indicating the UE to report a single PHR report/value; Paragraph 141. Thus one can see the UE receives a parameter indicating single power headroom as claimed).
Regarding claim 19, Khoshnevisan teaches a pathloss RS is based on the PHR (the UE can determine the PHR value based on transmission settings which can include pathloss compensation values and a closed loop index; Paragraphs 145 and 193. The value of the closed loop index can be 0 (i.e. lowest state index among a plurality of state indexes); Paragraphs 148, 152, 154. Thus one can see pathloss and PHR information is used, see also 620/625 of Figure 6. The PHR report is transmit in the PUSCH repetitions (thus second PUSCH); 630 and 635 of Figure 6).
Regarding claim 20, Khoshnevisan teaches transmitting the PHR is based on the reporting of the two PHRs, two SRS sets not being configured (the UE only reports a single PHR value for the PUSCH transmission which overlap; Paragraph 126. As only one PHR is configured, this would mean two PHRs are not configured as claimed).
Regarding claim 21, Khoshnevisan teaches the PHR is for an actual PUSCH repetition of the first PUSCH transmission (The PHR report is transmit in the PUSCH repetitions (actual PUSCH repetition); 630 and 635 of Figure 6).
Regarding claim 22, Khoshnevisan teaches the two SRS resource sets are of a same cell (Paragraph 119 teaches the SRS resource sets are associated with the same base station (105) i.e. same cell. Paragraph 122 further teaches that different SRS resource sets are transmit using the same beam).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan in view of Lo and further in view of Ling et al. “Ling” US 2025/0089036.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not disclose transmitting repetitions based on first/second TCI states; however, Ling teaches that PUSCH transmission with repetitions are transmit wherein each repetition of the PUSCH is transmitted according to a TCI state; Paragraph 72.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include sending PUSCH repetitions based on TCI states as taught by Ling.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can better support dynamic switching between beams as taught by Ling; Paragraph 4.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not disclose receiving repetitions based on first/second TCI states; however, Ling teaches that PUSCH transmission with repetitions are transmit/received wherein each repetition of the PUSCH is transmitted/received according to a TCI state; Paragraph 72.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include sending PUSCH repetitions based on TCI states as taught by Ling.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can better support dynamic switching between beams as taught by Ling; Paragraph 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan in view of Lo and further in view of Liu et al. “Liu” US 2025/0233717.
Regarding claim 5, while the prior art talks about TCI states and transmission of repetitions, the prior art does not teach transmitting the repetition using spatial domain based on the first state and using a transmission power determined based on pathloss indicated by the first TCI state. Liu teaches two TCI states are indicated to be activated wherein the UE applies, to all PUSCH transmissions, spatial filtering and pathloss computations based on power control parameters; Paragraph 72.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include activating TCI states and transmitting based on spatial filtering and pathloss/power computations as taught by Liu.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can apply the information to all PUSCH transmission as taught by Liu; Paragraph 72.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach an indication to activate at least two TCI states and transmitting the repetition using spatial domain based on the first state and using a transmission power determined based on pathloss indicated by the first TCI state. Liu teaches two TCI states are indicated to be activated wherein the UE applies, to all PUSCH transmissions, spatial filtering and pathloss computations based on power control parameters; Paragraph 72.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include activating TCI states and transmitting based on spatial filtering and pathloss/power computations as taught by Liu..
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can apply the information to all PUSCH transmission as taught by Liu; Paragraph 72.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach based on a first PUSCH associated with a first CORESET pool index overlapping in time with a second PUSCH associated with the second CORESET pool index, transmitting a PHR because Khoshnevisan teaches different PUSCH transmissions occasions may be transmitted in different slots or mini-slots (Par. 121). Applicant further argues that based on paragraph 196, Khoshnevisan teaches transmitting PHR in one of the PUSCH repetitions that do not overlap in time with each other.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the Examiner notes the applicant argues a paragraph that was not relied upon for the teachings of the claim language. Khoshnevisan teaches that multiple PUSCH repetitions overlap with a PUSCH carrying PHR; Paragraph 126. The PUSCH includes CORESETs as discussed in paragraph 83. Therefore, the PUSCH are viewed as associated with a first and second CORESET pool index as claimed. Paragraph 126 makes it clear that a PUSCH repetition overlaps with the first slot (i.e. same slot/time) as another PUSCH that carries the PHR. Thus, one can see that the PUSCH transmissions can overlap.
Applicant further argues the prior art does not teach a first/second PUSCH transmission associated with a first/second CORESET pool index much less based on the transmitting a PHR for the first PUSCH because Khoshnevisan does not teach any PUSCH transmissions associated with different CORESETs. Applicant further argues Lo doesn’t teach multiple CORESETs for UL transmission at all let alone physical uplink transmissions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the Examiner notes the first/second PUSCH associated with the first/second CORESET pool index is not based on the transmitting a PHR as argued. The opposite is true. It is the transmitting the PHR that is based on the first/second PUSCH overlapping. Khoshnevisan teaches PUSCH are associated with CORESETS; Paragraph 83. Further, there are one or more CORESETs which reads on the claimed first and second (different) CORESET. Thus, one can see that Khoshnevisan does in fact teach PUSCH transmissions associated with different CORESETs. All that Khoshnevisan was missing in the teachings is the use of CORESET pool indexes. Lo was solely utilized to disclose that CORESETs are associated with different CORESET pool indexes (see paragraphs 139 and 326 for examples). Lo is also related to PUSCH repetitions and power headroom information overlapping; Paragraphs 125. Thus, when the teachings of Lo, which talks about CORESETs having CORESET pool indexes is combined with Khoshnevisan, one can see the prior art teaches overlapping PUSCH transmissions which have different CORESET pool indexes as claimed.
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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights