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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 19 August 2026), Claims 1-12, 15-17, 20, 22, and 41 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 20, 22, and 41 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Matsumura does not disclose, suggest, or teach a different radio network temporary identifier, RNTI, of the received DCI indicates whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the wireless communication device is “both DL and UL TCI states”. Applicant further argues that the RNTI of Matsumura “serves an entirely different purpose than that required by the claims” (Remarks, 19 August 2026, Pg. 8, First Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103) because the claims require that “different RNTIs indicate the nature of the TCI states being activated, i.e., whether the TCI states are DL-only, UL-only, or joint DL and UL TCI states” (Remarks, 19 August 2026, Pg. 8, First Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first issue is whether Matsumura discloses a RNTI that performs a “purpose-distinguishing function” or a “type-distinguishing function as required by the claims” (Remarks, 19 August 2026, Pg. 8, First Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103). Examiner does not agree that there is a distinction between “purpose-distinguishing function” and a “type-distinguishing function”. Matsumura clearly discloses that the “new RNTI” is a RNTI used to distinguish the purpose and function of the DCI where the purpose and function of the DCI is to update a “common TCI state”. Here, a “common TCI state” is “a same TCI state for UL and DL” (Matsumura, ¶67-70 & Fig. 1). Thus, the purpose and function of the “new RNTI” of Matsumura is to activate, or apply, a “selected TCI state” where the “selected TCI state” is applied to channels and/or reference signals (RS) for both uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) (Matsumura, ¶67).
The second issue is whether Applicant’s claims recite either “purpose” or “function”. Applicant’s argument that the function of the “new RNTI” of Matsumura is “used solely for TCI state update” undermines Applicant’s argument because Applicant’s claims do not indicate or explicitly recite the terms of “purpose” and “function”. Applicant is reminded that “[a]lthough 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)). Here, the distinction upon which Applicant relies is not recited in the rejected claims. Furthermore, Applicant’s claims only require that a different RNTI is used for activating for application a joint TCI state having an uplink (UL) beam and a downlink (DL) beam.
The third issue is whether “the combination” of Yuan and Matsumura discloses and/or teaches the limitation. Applicant’s limitation requires a different RNTI for each TCI state (uplink, downlink, and both). Here, each RNTI indicates its function for each possible TCI state; more specifically, each RNTI is different because each reference indicates a different function for the RNTI that the respective reference was relied upon to teach. Thus, if Yuan teaches a first RNTI for only uplink (UL) and a second RNTI for only downlink (DL), then both RNTIs of Yuan must be different from the “new RNTI” of Matsumura because Matsumura indicates that the “new RNTI” must be used for both UL and DL, or a common TCI state.
Examiner maintains the current ground of rejection.
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 1-5, 20, 22, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag et al. (US 20220061056 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Farag”) in view of Yuan et al. (US 20230138165 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yuan”) in further view of Matsumura et al. (US 20230389038 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Matsumura”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 2, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
Farag further discloses for each TCI state of the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD, the DCI further comprises additional information that indicates whether the TCI state is a DL TCI state or an UL TCI state (¶169 & Fig. 11 (1104) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the TCI codepoint is information that indicates or updates a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states. Here, the states can be downlink, uplink, or both).
Regarding Claim 3, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
Farag further discloses for each TCI state of the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD, the DCI further comprises additional information that indicates whether the TCI state is an DL TCI state, an UL TCI state, or both a DL TCI state and an UL TCI state (¶169 & Fig. 11 (1104) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the TCI codepoint is information that indicates or updates a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states. Here, the states can be downlink, uplink, or both).
Regarding Claim 4, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
Farag further discloses the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are to be mapped to a particular one of a plurality of codepoints of a TCI field in a DCI (¶169 & Fig. 11 (1104) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the TCI codepoint is information that is mapped to a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states. Here, the states can be downlink, uplink, or both), and
the DCI further comprises additional information that indicates the particular one of the plurality of codepoints (¶169 & Fig. 11 (1104) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI includes the TCI codepoint).
Regarding Claim 5, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
Farag further discloses for each TCI state of the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD, the DCI further comprises additional information that indicates one of a plurality of codepoints of a TCI field in a DCI to which the TCI state is to be mapped (¶169 & Fig. 11 (1104) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI comprises TCI codepoint that indicates or updates a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states that are mapped to the TCI codepoint).
Regarding Claim 20, Farag discloses a Wireless Communication Device, WCD, the WCD comprising:
one or more transmitters (¶68-75 & Fig. 2 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising a radio frequency (RF) transceiver);
one or more receivers (¶68-75 & Fig. 2 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses the UE further comprising the radio frequency (RF) transceiver); and
processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the WCD (¶68-75 & Fig. 2 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses the UE further comprising controller/processor) to:
receive, from a network node, downlink control information, DCI (¶162-163 & Fig. 11 (1101) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses receiving, from a next generation node (gNB), downlink control information (DCI)), that comprises information that indicates one or more Transmission Configuration Indicator, TCI, states to be activated at the WCD (¶162-163 & Fig. 11 (1101) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI can indicate or update a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states), wherein the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD comprise:
one or more downlink, DL, TCI states to be activated at the WCD (¶13 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI can indicate or update a list of downlink (DL) transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states);
one or more uplink, UL, TCI states to be activated at the WCD (¶13 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI can indicate or update a list of uplink (UL) TCI states); or
both one or more DL TCI states to be activated at the WCD and one or more UL TCI states to be activated at the WCD (¶13 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI can indicate or update a list of DL and UL TCI states); and
update a list of activated DL TCI states at the WCD (¶169 & Fig. 11 (1104) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI comprises TCI state codepoints where the TCI codepoints indicate or update a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states. Here, the states can be downlink, uplink, or both), a list of activated UL TCI states at the WCD (¶162-163 & Fig. 11 (1104) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI comprises TCI state codepoints where the TCI codepoints indicate or update a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states. Here, the states can be downlink, uplink, or both), or both the list of activated DL TCI states and the list of activated UL TCI states at the WCD based on the received DCI (¶162-163 & Fig. 11 (1104) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI comprises TCI state codepoints where the TCI codepoints indicate or update a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states. Here, the states can be downlink, uplink, or both).
However, Farag does not disclose different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one or more DL TCI states, or one or more UL TCI states.
Yuan, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one or more DL TCI states, or one or more UL TCI states (¶60-61, Yuan discloses a first RNTI, namely TCI-DL-RNTI, that indicates one or more downlink (DL) TCI states and discloses a second RNTI, namely TCI-UL-RNTI, that indicates one or more uplink (UL) TCI states. Examiner correlates the TCI-DL-RNTI to “a RNTI of a received DCI that activates one or more DL TCI states”. Examiner correlated the TCI-UL-RNTI to “a RNTI of a received DCI that activates one or more UL TCI states”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farag by requiring that different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one or more DL TCI states, or one or more UL TCI states as taught by Yuan because beam measuring and reporting overhead is reduced by configuring a group common downlink control information (DCI) for a multi-user (MU) multiple input and multiple output (MIMO) (MU-MIMO) uplink/downlink communication (Yuan, ¶1 & ¶48).
However, Farag in view of Yuan does not disclose different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are both DL and UL TCI states.
Matsumura, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are both DL and UL TCI states (¶155, Matsumura discloses a "new RNTI" where the new RNTI is used to indicate a common beam TCI state in a downlink control information (DCI) message).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farag in view of Matsumura by requiring that different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are both DL and UL TCI states as taught by Matsumura because communication quality and throughput is improved by enabling of the determination of information related to QCL (Matsumura, ¶5-8).
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 41.
Regarding Claim 41, Farag discloses a network node, wherein the network node comprises:
one or more transmitters (¶77-84 & Fig. 2 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses a next generation node (gNB) comprising at least one radio frequency (RF) transceiver);
one or more receivers (¶77-84 & Fig. 2 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising at least one radio frequency (RF) transceiver); and
processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the network node (¶77-84 & Fig. 2 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses the UE further comprising controller/processor) to:
send, to a wireless communication device, WCD, a downlink control information, DCI (¶162-163 & Fig. 11 (1101) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses sending, to a user equipment (UE), downlink control information (DCI)), that comprises information indicates one or more Transmission Configuration Indicator, TCI, states to be activated at the WCD (¶162-163 & Fig. 11 (1101) | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI can indicate or update a list of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states), wherein the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD comprise:
one or more downlink, DL, TCI states to be activated at the WCD (¶13 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI can indicate or update a list of downlink (DL) transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states);
one or more uplink, UL, TCI states to be activated at the WCD (¶13 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI can indicate or update a list of uplink (UL) TCI states); or
both one or more DL TCI states to be activated at the WCD and one or more UL TCI states to be activated at the WCD (¶13 | US. Provisional Application No. 63112422: Pgs. 26-52, Farag discloses that the DCI can indicate or update a list of DL and UL TCI states).
However, Farag does not disclose different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one or more DL TCI states, or one or more UL TCI states.
Yuan, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one or more DL TCI states, or one or more UL TCI states (¶60-61, Yuan discloses a first RNTI, namely TCI-DL-RNTI, that indicates one or more downlink (DL) TCI states and discloses a second RNTI, namely TCI-UL-RNTI, that indicates one or more uplink (UL) TCI states. Examiner correlates the TCI-DL-RNTI to “a RNTI of a received DCI that activates one or more DL TCI states”. Examiner correlated the TCI-UL-RNTI to “a RNTI of a received DCI that activates one or more UL TCI states”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farag by requiring that different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one or more DL TCI states, or one or more UL TCI states as taught by Yuan because beam measuring and reporting overhead is reduced by configuring a group common downlink control information (DCI) for a multi-user (MU) multiple input and multiple output (MIMO) (MU-MIMO) uplink/downlink communication (Yuan, ¶1 & ¶48).
However, Farag in view of Yuan does not disclose different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are both DL and UL TCI states.
Matsumura, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are both DL and UL TCI states (¶155, Matsumura discloses a "new RNTI" where the new RNTI is used to indicate a common beam TCI state in a downlink control information (DCI) message).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farag in view of Matsumura by requiring that different Radio Network Temporary Identifiers, RNTIs, of the received DCI indicate whether the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are both DL and UL TCI states as taught by Matsumura because communication quality and throughput is improved by enabling of the determination of information related to QCL (Matsumura, ¶5-8).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura in further view of Liu et al. (US 20230370238 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Liu”).
Regarding Claim 6, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
Farag further discloses the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD comprises a DL TCI state and an UL TCI state (¶165-166 & Fig. 11 (1103) & Claim 2, Farag discloses the TCI states being activated by the media access control control element (MAC-CE) where the TCI states include at least an uplink (UL) TCI state and a downlink (DL) TCI state).
However, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura does not disclose the DCI comprises: a first field for indication of a DL TCI state that comprises a TCI index of the DL TCI state to be activated at the WCD; and a second field for indication of an UL TCI state that comprises a TCI index of the UL TCI state to be activated at the WCD.
Liu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the DCI comprises:
a first field for indication of a DL TCI state that comprises a TCI index of the DL TCI state to be activated at the WCD (¶58, Liu discloses a first field of N fields where the first field can indicate a downlink (DL) TCI state for activation); and
a second field for indication of an UL TCI state that comprises a TCI index of the UL TCI state to be activated at the WCD (¶58, Liu discloses a second field of N fields where the first field can indicate an uplink (UL) TCI state for activation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura by requiring that the DCI comprises: a first field for indication of a DL TCI state that comprises a TCI index of the DL TCI state to be activated at the WCD; and a second field for indication of an UL TCI state that comprises a TCI index of the UL TCI state to be activated at the WCD as taught by Liu because activation of TCI states is improved by enabling simultaneously activating DL TCI states and UL TCI states (Liu, ¶1).
Claims 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura in further view of Noh et al. (US 20210014931 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Noh”).
Regarding Claim 9, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura does not disclose the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one of two or more groups of TCI states, and the information comprised in the DCI that indicates the one or more TCI states is information that indicates the one of the two or more groups of TCI states.
Noh, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one of two or more groups of TCI states (¶282-284 & Table 15-1, Noh discloses two or more TCI state groups), and the information comprised in the DCI that indicates the one or more TCI states is information that indicates the one of the two or more groups of TCI states (¶282-284 & Table 15-1, Noh discloses receiving a downlink control information (DCI) including TCI codepoint information that configures two or more TCI state groups).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura by requiring that the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD are one of two or more groups of TCI states, and the information comprised in the DCI that indicates the one or more TCI states is information that indicates the one of the two or more groups of TCI states as taught by Noh because transmission and reception of signals between a transmission node and a user equipment (UE) by enabling cooperative communication in a wireless system (Noh, ¶70).
Regarding Claim 10, Farag in view of Yuan in view of Matsumura in further view of Noh discloses the method of claim 9.
Noh, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving, from a network node, information that configures the two or more groups of TCI states (¶282-284 & Table 15-1, Noh discloses receiving a downlink control information (DCI) including TCI codepoint information that configures two or more TCI state groups).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Farag in view of Yuan in view of Matsumura in further view of Noh by receiving, from a network node, information that configures the two or more groups of TCI states as taught by Noh because transmission and reception of signals between a transmission node and a user equipment (UE) by enabling cooperative communication in a wireless system (Noh, ¶70).
Regarding Claim 15, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura does not disclose the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD comprises two or more DL TCI states for a single codepoint of a TCI field of DCI, two or more UL TCI states for a single codepoint of the TCI field, or both two or more DL TCI states and two or more UL TCI states for a single codepoint of the TCI field.
Noh, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD comprises two or more DL TCI states for a single codepoint of a TCI field of DCI, two or more UL TCI states for a single codepoint of the TCI field, or both two or more DL TCI states and two or more UL TCI states for a single codepoint of the TCI field (¶282-284 & Table 15-1, Noh discloses receiving a downlink control information (DCI) including TCI codepoint information that configures two or more TCI state groups).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura by requiring that the one or more TCI states to be activated at the WCD comprises two or more DL TCI states for a single codepoint of a TCI field of DCI, two or more UL TCI states for a single codepoint of the TCI field, or both two or more DL TCI states and two or more UL TCI states for a single codepoint of the TCI field as taught by Noh because transmission and reception of signals between a transmission node and a user equipment (UE) by enabling cooperative communication in a wireless system (Noh, ¶70).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura in further view of Yi et al. (US 20200351892 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yi”).
Regarding Claim 16, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura does not disclose the WCD maintains separate lists of activated DL and/or UL TCI states for two or more TRPs or two or more CORESET pools.
Yi, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the WCD maintains separate lists of activated DL and/or UL TCI states for two or more TRPs or two or more CORESET pools (¶197, Yi discloses that the wireless device may configure and maintain a first list of TCI states for a transmit/receive point (TRP) and a second list of TCI states for another TRP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura by requiring that the WCD maintains separate lists of activated DL and/or UL TCI states for two or more TRPs or two or more CORESET pools as taught by Yi because transmission efficiency of a wireless network is improved (Yi, ¶158).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag in view of Yuan in view of Matsumura in further view of Hurd et al. (US 20230370861 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Hurd”).
Regarding Claim 17, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura does not disclose the WCD maintains separate lists of activated DL and/or UL TCI states for two or more Synchronization Signal Blocks, SSBs, and/or Physical Cell Identifiers, PCIs.
Hurd, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the WCD maintains separate lists of activated DL and/or UL TCI states for two or more Synchronization Signal Blocks, SSBs, and/or Physical Cell Identifiers, PCIs (¶38, Hurd discloses maintaining separate sets of TCI states for each SSB of at least two SSBs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Farag in view of Yuan in further view of Matsumura by requiring that the WCD maintains separate lists of activated DL and/or UL TCI states for two or more Synchronization Signal Blocks, SSBs, and/or Physical Cell Identifiers, PCIs as taught by Hurd because beam management procedures involving two or more TRPs communicating with the same user equipment are improved (Hurd, ¶6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 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.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights