DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 and 25-28 are pending.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-11, 14-16 have been amended.
Claims 17-24 have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/04/2025, the objections of claims 3-5, 7, 9-11, and 14-16 are maintained because the applicant has not made appropriate correction to claims 3-5, 7, 9-11, and 14-16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/04/2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, (pages 7-10), Zhang does not disclose using one signal to indicate beam information of a plurality of control resource sets.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner submits that Zhang discloses using one signal to indicate beam information of a plurality of control resource sets.
Zhang discloses using one signal to indicate beam information of a plurality of control resource sets ([0038, 0053, 0055]).
It is disclosed in paragraphs ([0038, 0053, 0055]) in Zhang as follows:
[0038] For example, in FIG. 3, the BS 302 performs directional LBT procedure in the spatial region 0, and acquires the channel for a COT. The UE 301 is configured with three CORESESTs, for example, CORESET 0, CORESET 1, and CORESET 2. The TCI state 0 which indicates beam 303-0, TCI state 1 which indicates beam 303-1, and TCI state 2 which indicates beam 303-2, are assigned to the three CORESESTs respectively. The UE 301 detects a GC-PDCCH in CORESET 0, in which a field indicates the COT duration, the until the COT duration is up, the UE 301 will only monitor PDCCH candidates in CORESET 0, and not monitor PDCCH candidates in CORESETs 1 and 2. The COT duration may also be indicated by other PDCCH, for example, the UE-specific PDCCH, or any other PDCCH.
[0053] FIG. 5 illustrates a method performed by a UE for wireless communication according to some embodiments of the subject disclosure. In step 501, the UE (e.g., UE 101 as shown in FIG. 1) determines one or more control resource sets (CORESETs) from a plurality of control resource sets in response to first Downlink Control Information (DCI) being received in at least one of the one or more control resource sets, for example, the first DCI is the GC-PDCCH or the UE-specific PDCCH. In step 502, the UE detects second DCI only in the determined one or more control resource sets within a time duration, the second DCI may be any PDCCH.
[0055] In one embodiment, each CORESET of the plurality of CORESETs has a corresponding parameter for indicating beam information. For example, in FIG. 4A, CORESET 0 has a corresponding TCI state 0, which indicates the beam 403-0, CORESET 1 has a corresponding TCI state 1, which indicates the beam 403-1, and CORESET 2 has a corresponding TCI state 2, which indicates the beam 403-2. In particular, when two CORESETs are determined, the two CORESETs may have the same TCI state.
For the above reasons, Zhang discloses DCI is the GC-PDCCH, GC-PDCCH indicates beam information of a plurality of control resource sets. Also see paragraphs ([0031-0032]).
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-11, and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-11, and 14-16 recite the acronym “ID” without initially defining what it stands for. Please define “ID” (i.e. identifier / identification).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 12-14, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (Pub. No.: US 20230047505 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
With respect to claim 1, Zhang teaches A method for beam indication, performed by a terminal, the method comprising:
determining a first signaling, wherein the first signaling is configured to indicate beam information of a plurality of control resource sets (figures 3, 5, [0038, 0053, 0055], UE determines a first signaling / DCI, DCI is the GC-PDCCH, GC-PDCCH indicates beam information of a plurality of control resource sets; see paragraphs [0031-0032]).
With respect to claim 2, Zhang teaches wherein the first signaling is configured to indicate beam information corresponding respectively to a first number of control resource sets ([0055]).
With respect to claim 3, Zhang teaches wherein the first signaling is configured to indicate a first number of target transmission configuration indication state IDs and control resource set IDs corresponding to respective target transmission configuration indication state IDs in the first number of target transmission configuration indication state IDs ([0053, 0055]), wherein each target transmission configuration indication state ID corresponds to one transmission configuration indication state, wherein the transmission configuration indication state ID is used to identify a TCI state ([0053, 0055]).
With respect to claim 8, Zhang teaches wherein the first signaling comprises a downlink control information (DCI) signaling ([0053, 0055]).
With respect to claim 12, Zhang teaches A method for beam indication, performed by a network device, the method comprising:
sending a first signaling, wherein the first signaling is configured to indicate beam information of a plurality of control resource sets (figures 3, 5, [0038, 0053, 0055], BS sends a first signaling / DCI, DCI is the GC-PDCCH, GC-PDCCH indicates beam information of a plurality of control resource sets; see paragraphs [0031-0032]).
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites the method of claim 2, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites the method of claim 3, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 25, Zhang teaches A device for beam indication, comprising:
a processor (figure 6, [0058], processor); and
a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor (figure 6, [0058], memory);
wherein the processor is configured to (figure 6, [0058],):
determine a first signaling, wherein the first signaling is configured to indicate beam information of a plurality of control resource sets (figures 3, 5, [0038, 0053, 0055], UE determines a first signaling / DCI, DCI is the GC-PDCCH, GC-PDCCH indicates beam information of a plurality of control resource sets; see paragraphs [0031-0032]).
With respect to claim 26, this claim recites the method of claim 12, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 27, this claim recites the method of claim 1, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 28, this claim recites the method of claim 12, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of MIAO (Pub. No.: US 20220103207 A1), hereinafter MIAO.
With respect to claim 6, Zhang teaches the first signal as set above.
Zhang does not explicitly teach the first signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE).
However, MIAO teaches the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) ([0006], see claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of MIAO, the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE), into the teachings of Zhang, in order to achieve an efficient service delivery through the reduced end-to-end latency and load on the transport network (MIAO, [0113]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 9-11, and 15-16 are 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7193. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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.
/KIET TANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469