Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claims 28 and 33 have cured the deficiencies mentioned in previous office action. As a result, the rejection of claims 28 and 33 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding claims 21 and 36 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new ground of rejection based on the newly-added reference Park et al (US 20250358047 A1).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 21, 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (WO 2020020128 A1) in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) and Park et al (US 20250358047 A1) (hereinafter “Park1”).
Regarding claims 21 & 36, Yang et al teaches a communication apparatus, comprising: a transceiver (terminal device), which, in operation, receives control information (configuration info from network-side device) indicating two or more beams for uplink transmissions (see description for first aspect, third aspect, forth aspect & eighth aspect, where terminal device receives multiple uplink beam info from network device); and circuitry (UE), which, in operation, uses the two or more beams for a plurality of uplink transmission occasions based on the control information and based on at least one condition for beam switching (see the description for the terminal device determining the beam switching point, where the terminal device needs to determine the beam switching points first, namely condition for beam switching, then use different uplink beam info to send PUSCH or PUCCH). Yang et al does not teach associating each beam with a precoder from a codebook for codebook-based transmission and associated each beam with non-zero power channel state information reference signal (NZP CSI-RS) for non-codebook-based transmission. However, the use of both codebook-based precoding and non-codebook based NZP CSI-RS is well known in the art for optimizing communications in various channel condition by getting efficiency through reducing complexity and overhead (for codebook based) and achieving higher accuracy and flexibility (for non-codebook based). For example, Ji teaches using a precoder for codebook-based transmission (see par [468], [470]) and using NZP CSI-RS for non-codebook-based transmission (see par [473], [474]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ji’s teaching of codebook-based precoding and non-codebook based NZP CSI-RS in Yang’s system with the motivation to optimize communications in various channel conditions.
Yang in view of Ji does not explicitly teach associating SRI and TPMI with each resource set for codebook-based transmission and associating NZP CSI-RS with each resource set for non-codebook-based transmission. However, such features is known in the art. For example, Park1 teaches associating SRI and TPMI with each resource set for codebook-based transmission (See par [77,191-193]) and associating NZP CSI-RS with each resource set for non-codebook-based transmission (par [195-196])) for improving transmission quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Park1’s teaching associating SRI and TPMI for each resource set for codebook-based transmission and associating NZP CSI-RS with each resource set for non-codebook-based transmission in the system of Yang in view of Ji with the motivation to improve transmission quality performance.
Regarding claim 25, Yang et al further teaches using DCI, MAC CE or RRC for sending configuration info to the terminal device (see description of first aspect and after “The second” where the network device configures multiple uplink beam information for the PUCCH through high-level signaling (RRC signaling, MAC CE signaling).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (WO 2020020128 A1) in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) and Park1 (US 20200266867 A1) and further in view of Akkarakaran et al (US 20190081763).
Regarding claim 22, Yang et al teaches uplink transmission occasions including PUCCH transmission occasions (see description of association relationship k and the two aspects of the terminal device using uplink beam info to send PUSCH and PUCCH). However, Yang et al fails to explicitly teach that the uplink transmit occasions are defined by a starting symbol or slot index. However, Akkarakaran et al teaches using starting symbol and/or slot index to accurately identify the PUCCH resource (see par [113, 145]) for uplink transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Akkarakaran et al’s teaching of using starting symbol and/or slot index to accurately identify the PUCCH resource in the system of Yang in view of Ji and Park1 with the motivation being to accurately identify the PUCCH resource for uplink transmission.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (WO 2020020128 A1) in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) and Park1 (US 20200266867 A1) and further in view of Xi et al (WO 2018204340 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Yang et al does not explicitly teach using inter-slot and intra-slot structure for frequency hopping management, However, Xi et al teaches using SRS configuration to indicate inter-slot and intra-slot hopping pattern to enable both frequency hopping within a slot among the slots to improve channel quality and reduce interference within a slot and among the slots (see par [6, 172, 179, 191, 192, 194]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Xi et al’s teaching of using inter-slot and intra-slot structure for frequency hopping management in the system of Yang in view of Ji and Park1 with the motivation being to improve channel quality and reduce interference within a slot and among the slots.
Claims 24, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (WO 2020020128 A1) in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) and Park et al (US 20250358047 A1) (hereinafter “Park1”) and further in view of Hasegawa et al (WO 2021152747 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Yang et al does not teach receiving explicit indication from the base communication apparatus for performing beam switching. However, Hasegawa et al teach that the HAPS 40 receives beam direction control information from the control station 50 (base communication apparatus) and uses that information to perform beam switching (see description of figure 13 where HAPS 40 performs beam switching using beam control info form base control station 50) to improve communication quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Hasegawa et al’s teaching of receiving explicit indication from the base communication apparatus for performing beam switching in the system of Yang in view of Ji and Park1 with the motivation being to improve beam switching and communications quality.
Regarding claim 34, Yang et al does not teach using sounding reference signal (SRS) beams for channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) in beam switching management. However, Hasegawa et al, in similar endeavor, teaches using sounding reference signal (SRS) beams for channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) in beam switching management (see description for Fig 20) to effectively manage beam switching. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Hasegawa’s teaching of using SRS and CSI-RS for beam switching management in the system of Yang in view of Ji with the motivation being to improve beam switching management effectiveness.
Claims 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) and Park et al (US 20200266867 A1) and further in view of Zhou et al (US 20210135741 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Yang et al does not teach that the condition for beam switching is that the interval between two uplink transmission occasions is not less than the latency of beam switching. However, Zhou recognizes that the terminal device needs time to process/decode the received beam switching info for switching to the new beam (beam switching latency) and that beam switching can only take place successfully if the next beam switching happens after the terminal has enough time to process and switch (beam switching latency). Zhou teaches that the UE will check to see if there is not enough time to process the switching (interval between current and next transmit occasion is less than the switching latency) and the UE will use the default set beams (see para [77,78]). Thus, Zhou essentially teach that the condition for beams switching is that the interval between two uplink transmission occasions is not less than the latency of beam switching as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Zhou’s teaching of checking to see if there is enough time to beam switch in the system of Yang in view of Ji with the motivation being to improve beam switching and communications quality.
Regarding claim 30, Yang et al does not teach association of beams with a plurality of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states. However, Zhou et al teaches the association of beams with a plurality of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states (see par [80, 90, 96, 126]) to enable the system to quickly determine the appropriate beams and, thereby, can dynamically adapt to changing channel conditions and provide an optimal beams pair for communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Zhou’s teaching of beam switching on a condition that is based on an explicit indication in the system of Yang in view of Ji with the motivation being to quickly determine the appropriate beams and, thereby, can dynamically adapt to changing channel conditions and provide an optimal beams pair for communications.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (WO 2020020128 A1) in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) and Park et al (US 20200266867 A1) and further in view of Bai et al (US 20190349949 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Yang et al does not teach that beam switching to be performed within a cyclic prefix if it is possible. However, Bai et al teaches that beam switching to be performed within a cyclic prefix if it is possible (see description of figure 9, par [24, 79, 92]) to ensure a successful beam switching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Bai et al’s teaching of performing beam switching within a cyclic prefix if possible in the system of Yang in view of Ji with the motivation being to ensure a successful beam switching.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (WO 2020020128 A1) in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) Park et al (US 20200266867 A1) and further in view of Ahn et al (WO 2018128351 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Yang et al does not teach assistance information to a base communication apparatus based on capabilities of the two or more beams. However, Ahn et al teaches that the UE provide assistance to the BS by providing beam switching latency to enable the BS to allocate enough time gap to account for the latency, thereby improve the beam switching success chance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ahn’s teaching of UE providing beam switching latency to BS in the system of Yang in view of Ji with the motivation being to enable the BS to allocate enough time gap to account for the latency, thereby improve the beam switching success chance.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (WO 2020020128 A1) in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) Park et al (US 20200266867 A1) and further in view of Sun et al (US 20220311545 A1)
Regarding claim 29, Yang does not teach arranging beams for the plurality of uplink transmission occasions in a cyclical or a sequential pattern. However, such beam patterns are well known in the art to provide easy and quick way for beam scanning/sweeping. For example, Sun et al teaches arranging beams for the plurality of uplink transmission occasions in a cyclical or a sequential pattern (see par [33]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sun et al’s teaching of arranging beams for the plurality of uplink transmission occasions in a cyclical or a sequential pattern in the system of Yang in view of Ji with the motivation being to enhance beam scanning/sweeping efficiency.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (WO 2020020128 A1) in view of Ji et al (US 20230023719) Park et al (US 20200266867 A1) and further in view of Wang et al (CN 113924796 A).
Regarding claim 31, Yang et al does not teach configure beam management with power control parameter. However, Wang et al teaches the power control parameter associated with each SRI in the SRI can be provided by the base station 402 via the RRC signaling, which may result in the delay of the beam switching before the UE 404 can decode and apply the power control parameter for UL transmission to reduce path loss (see description for fig 4A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wang’s teaching of using the power control parameter associated for beam management in the system of Yang in view of Ji with the motivation being to improve path loss.
Conclusion
Liou et al (US 10,952,231 B2). Liou teaches the use of TPMI and SRI for codebook-based transmission (see col. 29, lines 10-37) for efficient beam forming signaling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY D VU whose telephone number is (571)272-3155. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-5:00PM EST Monday-Thursday.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571)272-0734. 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.
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights