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 Office Action is in response to claim amendment filed on August 25, 2026 and wherein claims 1, 17, 31 and 37 being currently amended.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1-5, 17-21, 31-35 and 37-41 are currently pending in this Office Action.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, 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) and MPEP 2145.
Response to Applicant’s Reply
The Applicant’s reply filed on August 25, 2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (Remarks, Page 12) has been fully considered. “Claim Interpretation” section has been updated corresponding to applicant’s reply.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, Pages 12-15, filed on August 25, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 17, 31 and 37 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rastegardoost.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 31-36 in this application use the word “means for”, so they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification appears to show the structures provided in para [0131 - 0191] and Figs. 8-11 are interpreted as the corresponding structures for the "means for" limitations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-4, 17-20, 31-34 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20210298062 A1, hereinafter Huang) in view of Cirik et al. (US 20230209538 A1, hereinafter Cirik) and further in view of Rastegardoostet al. (US 20240040587 A1, hereinafter Rastegardoost).
Claim 1: Huang teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, element 115, abstract), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 12, element 1240);
memory (Fig. 12, element 1230) coupled with the one or more processors; and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors ([0113], “the processor 1240 may be configured to execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory (e.g., the memory 1230) to cause the device 1205 to perform various functions”) to cause the apparatus to:
receive a single control message scheduling a transmission burst comprising a plurality of downlink messages communicated in a plurality of downlink shared channels, the single control message indicating a first plurality of transmission configuration indicators associated with a first downlink shared channel of the plurality of downlink shared channels and a second plurality of transmission configuration indicators associated with a second downlink shared channel of the plurality of downlink shared channels (Fig. 17, element 1705, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, [0079], “a base station 105 may transmit a downlink grant 605 to a UE 115 scheduling downlink transmissions in multiple PDSCHs 610 to the UE 115 … the downlink grant 605 may be a one downlink grant trigger for transmitting a same transport block, using different TCI states”, [0085], “ a base station 105 may transmit a downlink grant 805 to a UE 115 scheduling downlink transmissions in multiple PDSCHs 810 to the UE 115 … the base station 105 may transmit different transport blocks in the multiple PDSCHs 810 using different TCI states (e.g., different beams)”);
However, Huang does not explicitly teach the single control message further indicating a first feedback offset value and a second feedback offset value, wherein a quantity of feedback offset values indicated in the single control message indicates a quantity of transmission configuration indicators corresponding to the plurality of downlink messages, and wherein the first feedback offset value indicates that a first transmission configuration indicator of the first plurality of transmission configuration indicators corresponds to two or more downlink messages of the plurality of downlink messages, wherein the two or more downlink messages are associated with a first unlink control channel transmission corresponding to the first feedback offset value, and the second offset value indicates that a second transmission configuration indicator of the second plurality of transmission configuration indicators corresponds to two or more downlink messages of the plurality of downlink messages, wherein the two or more downlink messages are associated with a second unlink control channel transmission corresponding to the second feedback offset value, and wherein the first transmission configuration indicator is different from the second transmission configuration indicator;
monitor for a first downlink message of the plurality of downlink messages in the first downlink shared channel using a first transmission configuration indicator selected from the first plurality of transmission configuration indicators based at least in part on the first feedback offset value being indicated in the single control message; and monitor for a second downlink message of the plurality of downlink messages in the second downlink shared channel using a second transmission configuration indicator selected from the second plurality of transmission configuration indicators based at least in part on the second feedback offset value being indicated in the single control message.
Cirik and Rastegardoost, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the single control message further indicating a first feedback offset value (Rastegardoost, Fig. 23, element K1_1 ) and a second feedback offset value (Rastegardoost, Fig. 23, element K1_2), wherein a quantity of feedback offset values indicated in the single control message indicates a quantity of transmission configuration indicators corresponding to the plurality of downlink messages (Cirik, [0899], “The wireless device may receive a control message indicating activation of at least two unified transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states … The one or more configuration parameters may comprise a field-size-DCI parameter indicating the size of the unified TCI state field in the DCI”, [0272], “At least two TCI states may be/comprise at least two downlink TCI states …The first TCI state may be/comprise a first downlink TCI state of the at least two downlink TCI states. The second TCI state may be/comprise a second downlink TCI state of the at least two downlink TCI states”), and wherein the first feedback offset value indicates that a first transmission configuration indicator of the first plurality of transmission configuration indicators corresponds to two or more downlink messages of the plurality of downlink messages, wherein the two or more downlink messages are associated with a first unlink control channel transmission corresponding to the first feedback offset value (Rastegardoost, Fig. 23, element PUCCH1, [0304], disclose the wireless device may determine a first slot for a first PUCCH transmission PUCCH #1 for first HARQ feedback transmission based on the first
slot offset. The wireless device may transmit HARQ feedback of some of the PDSCHs e.g., PDSCH #1 and PDSCH #2 via PUCCH #1), and the second offset value indicates that a second transmission configuration indicator of the second plurality of transmission configuration indicators corresponds to two or more downlink messages of the plurality of downlink messages, wherein the two or more downlink messages are associated with a second unlink control channel transmission corresponding to the second feedback offset value (Rastegardoost, Fig. 23, element PUCCH2, [0304], disclose the wireless device may determine a second slot for a second PUCCH transmission PUCCH #2 for second
HARQ feedback transmission based on the second slot offset. The wireless device may transmit HARQ feedback of the remainder of the PDSCHs e.g., PDSCH #3 and PDSCH #4 via PUCCH #2), and wherein the first transmission configuration indicator is different from the second transmission configuration indicator (Cirik, Fig. 30A, [0899], “The wireless device may receive a control message indicating activation of at least two unified transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states … The at least two unified TCI states may comprise: a first TCI state that occurs first in a list of the at least two unified TCI states; and a second
TCI state that occurs second in the list …. The one or more configuration parameters may indicate a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) table comprising one or more rows, wherein each row of the one or more rows may indicate a respective: slot offset value; starting symbol; length”, [0854], “At step 3015, the wireless device may transmit/receive, via one or more resources, the at least one transport block (e.g., PUSCH transmission, PDSCH reception) based on the first TCI state of the at least two TCI states, … At step 3025, the wireless device may transmit/receive, via one or more resources, the at least one transport block (e.g., PUSCH transmission, PDSCH reception) based on the second TCI state of the at least two TCI states … At step 3030, the wireless device may transmit/receive via one or more resources, the at least one transport block (e.g., PUSCH transmission, PDSCH reception) based on the first TCI state and the second TCI state);
monitor for a first downlink message of the plurality of downlink messages in the first downlink shared channel using a first transmission configuration indicator selected from the first plurality of transmission configuration indicators based at least in part on the first feedback offset value being indicated in the single control message; and monitor for a second downlink message of the plurality of downlink messages in the second downlink shared channel using a second transmission configuration indicator selected from the second plurality of transmission configuration indicators based at least in part on the second feedback offset value being indicated in the single control message (Cirik, Fig. 30A, [0854], “At step 3015, the wireless device may transmit/receive, via one or more resources, the at least one transport block (e.g., PUSCH transmission, PDSCH reception) based on the first TCI state of the at least two TCI states, … At step 3025, the wireless device may transmit/receive, via one or more resources, the at least one transport block (e.g., PUSCH transmission, PDSCH reception) based on the second TCI state of the at least two TCI states … At step 3030, the wireless device may transmit/receive via one or more resources, the at least one transport block (e.g., PUSCH transmission, PDSCH reception) based on the first TCI state and the second TCI state”, [0796-0798], disclose the wireless device may receive transport block based on the at least two TCI states in response to the row/entry indicating the quantity/number of repetitions that is greater/larger than one, [0901], “The wireless device may receive one or more messages comprising one or more configuration parameters indicating a plurality of transmission configuration indictor (TCI) states … The one or more configuration parameters may indicate a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) table comprising one or more rows, wherein each row of the one or more rows may indicate a respective: slot offset value; starting symbol; length … The wireless device may receive the PDSCH signal/reception based on the first TCI state by receiving the PDSCH signal/reception in response to the row indicating”).
Huang and Cirik are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Huang and the features of activating two unified TCI without requiring additional
signaling to configure parameters for each communication as taught by Cirik, for the benefit for reducing beam misalignment, reducing inaccurate channel measurement, reducing overhead on the TCI configuration, reducing wrong scheduling decisions, improving alignment of wireless communications, and thus achieving more efficient wireless communication ([0004], [0211]).
Huang and Rastegardoost are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Huang and the features of supporting multiple HARQ feedback transmission associated with a multi-PDSCH scheduling using single control message as taught by Rastegardoost, for the benefit for reducing scheduling overhead as well as PDCCH monitoring requirements in time domain with multiple PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling with a single downlink control information DCI ([0259]), and reducing feedback transmission latency of earlier PDSCHs ([0278]).
Claim 17 recited a method including method steps that are essentially same as features of claim 1 and thus, analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Claim 31 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Claim 37 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1 and Huang further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications ([0009-0014]).
Claim 2: Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
monitor the first downlink shared channel or a first control channel associated with the first downlink shared channel to determine a first channel quality metric; and monitor the second downlink shared channel or a second control channel associated with the second downlink shared channel to determine a second channel quality metric (Fig. 17, Element 1715, 1720, [0071], “the UE 115-a may be configured to report a first stage of feedback including HARQ feedback (e.g., the NACK) and a second stage of feedback including the CSI
feedback for the PDSCH. Thus, the UE 115-a may determine a received signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) for the PDSCH transmitted by the base station”, [0085], “Thus, the UE 115 may report feedback for the multiple PDSCHs 810 based on
the PDSCHs 810 including different transport blocks and being associated with different TCI states”);
wherein the first transmission configuration indicator is selected for the first downlink shared channel based at least in part on the first channel quality metric, and wherein the second transmission configuration indicator is selected for the second downlink shared channel based at least in part on the second channel quality metric (Fig. 17, Element 1715, 1720, [0080], “The CSI report for a corresponding PDSCH 610 may be based on an SINR or LLR derived from attempting to decode the PDSCH. For example, the multiple CSI reports may include a first CSI report for PDSCH 610-a transmitted using a first TCI state (e.g., TCI 1), a second CSI report for PDSCH 610-b transmitted using a second TCI state (e.g., TCI 2)”).
Claim 18 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 17 and claim 2.
Claim 32 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 31 and claim 2.
Claim 38 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 37 and claim 2.
Claim 3: Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
receive a second control message indicating that the UE is to use the second transmission configuration indicator to monitor for the second downlink message; wherein the second downlink shared channel is monitored using the second transmission configuration indicator based at least in part on the second control message ([0072], [0074] and [0078], disclose Base station may update configuration, to identify an MCS, TCI, etc for retransmission based on CSI feedback, [0071], disclose UE may obtain an updated configuration, [0076], disclose BS may transmits one or more downlink grants. Combining all these together, Huang teaches UE monitor second down link shared channel using the second transmission configuration indicator based on the second control message).
Claim 19 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 17 and claim 3.
Claim 33 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 31 and claim 3.
Claim 39 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 37 and claim 3.
Claim 4: Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
transmit one or more negative acknowledgement messages associated with failure to receive the first downlink message via the first downlink shared channel ([0069], “the UE 115 may transmit a NACK indicating that the UE 115 failed to receive or decode the multiple PDSCHs or each PDSCH”, [0074], “the UE 115 may transmit a HARQ ACK or NACK and CSI feedback for the PDSCH 310 in a PUCCH 315 allocated by the downlink grant 305”); and
receive, based at least in part on the transmission of the one or more negative acknowledgement messages, a second control message indicating that the UE is to monitor for the second downlink message in the second downlink shared channel using the second transmission configuration indicator ([0074], “The base station 105 may then adjust a configuration for retransmitting the PDSCH 310 based on the CSI feedback”, [0072], “the UE 115-a may transmit the NACK (e.g., first stage of feedback) and the CSI feedback (e.g., second stage of feedback) to the base station 105-a in a PUCCH. The base station 105-a may receive the two stages of feedback and may identify a suitable configuration for retransmitting the PDSCH to the UE 115-a based on the two stages of feedback”, [0074], “ the UE 115 may transmit a HARQ ACK or NACK and CSI feedback for the PDSCH 310 in a PUCCH 315 allocated by the downlink grant 305. The base station 105 may then adjust a configuration for retransmitting the PDSCH 310 based on the CSI feedback”).
Claim 20 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 17 and claim 4.
Claim 34 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 31 and claim 4.
Claim 40 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 37 and claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 21, 35,41 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on 5712723980. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights