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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 14 April 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 29 and 59 are amended.
Claims 63-65 are newly added.
Claims 2, 4, 7-10, 12-28, 30, 32, 34-58 and 60-62 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 29, 31, 33, 59 and 63-65 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 29, 31, 33 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the following (refer to page 7 of the response):
“Viering does not require selecting the CORESET with the lowest ID, nor does it disclose any further determination based on the number of TCI states of the CORESET. Although Viering mentions "active TCI states," it does not disclose using the number of TCI states as a condition for determining a target CORESET.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. It is first noted that the claim language recites “determining a target CORESET” and “determining a target TCI state”; therefore, Applicant’s arguments related to “selecting” the CORESET with the lowest ID are not commensurate in scope with the claim language, as currently drafted. Further, the claim language does not contain further limitation as to how any of the determination steps are performed; instead, the claim describes a “preset rule” and a “pre-configured manner” for determining a target COREST and target TCI state. As such, the claim language reasonably encompasses a scenario where a CORESET is utilized with a lowest ID and at least two TCI states. Accordingly, Viering clearly a UE performing certain steps upon being instructed to perform a RACH-less handover (paragraph 0034). As part of performing the handover, the UE utilizes CORESET #0 (i.e., the lowest CORESET ID), determined from the CORESET index for the target cell and the QCL source SSB of one of the DL references signals is indicated by active TCI states (i.e., at least two TCI states). As such, Viering discloses the UE determining both the lowest CORESET ID and TCI states in connection with one another (i.e., CORESET#0 when there are multiple TCI states), absent further limitation in the claim language as to specific steps involved in the determining.
Further, Applicant states that “Viering merely discloses selecting “one of” the active TCI states. Viering does not disclose selecting a TCI state based on a predefined order (e.g., selecting the first TCI state)”. While noting that paragraph 0086 of Applicant’s specification describes a first TCI state and a last TCI state among at least two TCI states, the claim language does not require selecting the TCI state based on a predefined order, and claim language “first TCI state” does not import the alleged meaning as related to order.
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 29, 31, 33 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 29, 31, 33 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0321379), hereinafter Cirik, in view of Viering et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0191748), hereinafter Viering.
Regarding Claim 29, Cirik discloses a terminal device (Figure 15A, wireless device 1502) comprising:
a communication interface (Figure 15A, wireless device 1502 comprises antennas (air interface 1506) coupled due TX processing system 1520 and RX processing system 1522);
a processor coupled to the communication interface (Figure 15A, processing system 1518 is coupled to both TX processing system 1520 and RX processing system 1522); and
a memory configured to store a computer program (Figure 15A and paragraph 0187, memory 1524 stores program instructions);
the processor being configured to execute the computer program (paragraph 0187, the program instructions in the memory 1524 are executed by the processing system 1518) to cause the terminal device to:
receive higher-layer configuration information (Figure 17, element 1712 and paragraph 0221, the wireless device receives configuration parameters from the base station);
determine N control resource sets (CORESETs) and at least one transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of each of the N CORESETs based on the higher-layer configuration information, N being a positive integer (Figure 17, paragraphs 0228 and 0238-0240 – the wireless device determines CORESETs and TCI states based on the received configuration parameters);
determine a target CORESET from the N CORESETs (paragraphs 0238-0240, the wireless device monitors downlink channels for DCI based on respective (i.e., target) CORESETs); and
determine a target TCI state of the target CORESET (paragraphs 0238-0240, the wireless device monitors downlink channels for DCI based on respective (i.e., target) CORESETs and TCI states).
However, Cirik does not disclose determine a target CORESET from the N CORESETs according to a preset rule, wherein the preset rule specifies that among the N CORESETs, a CORESET with a lowest CORESET identifier (ID) is determined, and the determined CORESET is determined as the target CORESET when the determined CORESET has at least two TCI states; determine a target TCI state of the target CORESET according to a pre-configured manner, wherein the pre-configured manner specifies that a first TCI state of the target CORESET is the target TCI state. In an analogous art, Viering discloses this. Specifically, Viering discloses configuring an SSB as a QCL source for DMRS for PDCCH receptions in the CORESET#0 (i.e., CORESET with a lowest CORESET ID) determined from the CORESET index configured for the target cell so that the lowest or highest (or one of the CORESET index, determined by UE or configured by network) CORESET index value is selected and the QCL source SSB of one of the downlink (DL) reference signal (RS) indicated by active TCI states (i.e., at least two TCI states) (refer to paragraph 0034). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cirik and Viering. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform radio resource control reconfiguration during a handover from a first cell to a second cell (paragraph 0003 of Viering).
Claim 1 comprises the same limitations as the terminal device in Claim 29, claimed as a method. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected based on the same rationale as presented above.
Claim 59 is claimed as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, the computer program being executed by a processor of a terminal device to cause the terminal device to perform the same steps recited as a method in Claim 1 and as a terminal device in Claim 29. Cirik discloses, at Figure 15A and paragraph 0187, the program instructions in the memory 1524 are executed by the processing system 1518 to perform the claimed steps as described above with regard to Claim 29. For the remaining limitations, Claim 59 is rejected based on the same rationale as presented above in Claim 29.
Regarding Claims 3 and 31, Cirik discloses the target TCI state is used for determining a target quasi co-location (QCL) assumption, wherein the target QCL assumption is used for aperiodic channel state information-reference signal (AP CSI-RS) transmission (paragraphs 0276-0277, the TCI state indicates a QCL type and is used for reference signals which can be an aperiodic CSI-RS) and/or for physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission (paragraphs 0276-0277, the TCI state indicates a QCL type and is used for reference signals which can be an PDSCH).
Regarding Claims 5 and 33, Cirik discloses the target TCI state is used for determining at least one of a path loss reference signal (PL-RS) (Figure 17, paragraphs 0245-0246 – the UE receives configuration parameters including a plurality of TCI states and enabling parameter for determination/selection of a default path loss reference signal for the uplink channel/signal (e.g., PUCCH, SRS, PUSCH, etc.)) and a beam (paragraph 0282 - the wireless device may determine the spatial domain transmission filter based on the reference signal indicated by the TCI state of the selected CORESET among the plurality of CORESETs), wherein the beam comprises at least one of: a beam for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission; a beam for physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission (paragraph 0282, the beam is for PUSCH transmission, thereby meeting the claimed alternative limitation); a beam for sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission; a beam for AP CSI-RS transmission; or a beam for PDSCH transmission.
Regarding Claim 6, Cirik discloses the PL-RS comprises at least one of: a PL-RS for determining a PL of PUCCH transmission power; a PL-RS for determining a PL of PUSCH transmission power; or a PL-RS for determining a PL of SRS transmission power (Figure 17, paragraph 0246 – the received configuration parameters/TCI state are used for determining a path loss reference signal for PUCCH, SRS, or PUSCH, thereby meeting the claimed alternative limitation)
Regarding Claim 11, Cirik discloses the target QCL assumption is used for transmitting a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidate (Figures 14B and 17, paragraphs 0175-0176 and 0238-0241 – based on the CORESET (and its corresponding TCI state and QCL assumption), the wireless device monitors a set of PDCCH candidates).
Claims 63-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik in view of Viering, as applied to Claims 1, 29 and 59 above, and further in view of Venugopal et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0195624), hereinafter Venugopal. The combination of Cirik and Viering discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 29 and 59, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the target TCI state is used for determining a beam, wherein the beam comprises a beam for SRS transmission. In an analogous art, Venugopal discloses this. Specifically, Venugopal discloses when a default beam for SRS/PUCCH is not configured, the UE may determine a spatial relation (default beam) for transmitting the SRS/PUCCH based on TCI state information (paragraph 0059). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cirik / Viering with Venugopal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support multi-TRP in NR 5G and effective channel propagation (refer to paragraph 0058 of Venugopal).
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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 W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights