DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 4/7/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1, 12, and 23 and cancelled claims 10 and 21.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-13, 16-20, 22, and 23 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see page 21, filed 4/7/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 and they are persuasive (with the exception of claim 23). Specifically, Applicant has added allowable subject matter from claims 10 and 21 to claims 1 and 12. Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 (with the exception of claim 23).
As noted below, the new limitations in claim 23 do not have support in the original disclosure. Therefore, these limitations are not given weight and the previous rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been maintained herein.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see pages 21-22, filed 4/7/2026, with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see page 22, filed 4/7/2026, with respect to the objections to the specification and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the objections to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23: the limitations “wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to: monitor a group common PDCCH before receiving a paging PDCCH; and determine a listen before talk failure if the group common PDCCH is not received for a plurality of channel state information-reference signal/tracking reference signal (CSI-RS/TRS) identifiers” are not supported in the original disclosure.
The specification provides the following related descriptions. First, in [0017]: “the UE may determine a listen before talk failure if the group common PDCCH is not received for a plurality of channel state information - reference signal / tracking reference signal (CSI-RS/TRS) identifiers”. Similarly, see [0076], “If the UE does not receive GC-PDCCH for CSI-RS/TRS IDs, then UE may assume LBT failure”.
That is, the determination of a listen before talk (LBT) failure is an action performed by the UE, not “the apparatus” of claim 23, which has been described as “a next generation Node B (gNB)”. It is not clear what action the gNB of claims 23 performs relative to the UE determining whether a GC-PDCCH has been received and/or whether an LBT has occurred.
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.
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung ’442 et al (US 2021/0321442) in view of Jung ’754 et al (US 2023/0319754).
Regarding claim 23: Jung ’442 discloses an apparatus, the apparatus being a next generation Node B (gNB) comprising:
a processor (see processor 22-05 of Figure 23, for example),
communications circuitry (see receiver 21-00 and transmitter 21-10 of Figure 22, for example), and
a memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor cause the apparatus to (see [0624]-[0627], for example):
transmit to another apparatus. a single Downlink Control Information (DCI) scheduling a plurality of Physical Downlink Shared Channels (PDSCHs) (disclosed throughout; see Figure 16 and [0437], for example, which illustrate a plurality of TCI states (#1, #2, #3, and #4) received via a DCI; these TCI states correspond one-to-one to (and the DCI is scheduling) the first through fourth PDSCHs), so as to enable the other apparatus to:
determine a plurality of Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) states (disclosed throughout; see Figure 16 and [0437], for example, which illustrate a plurality of TCI states (#1, #2, #3, and #4) received via a DCI),
identify one TCI state among the plurality of TCI states based on a TCI state used for receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) carrying the single DCI (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0442], for example, when at least one symbol of the first PDSCH is within timeDurationForQCL of the PDCCH/DCI, a default spatial QCL is applied instead of the first TCI state; this default special QCL is the QCL parameter used to receive the PDCCH; as indicated throughout, the QCL parameters that comprise the default spatial QCL are TCI states; that is, the TCI states comprise QCL parameters; see [0265] “the QCL parameters…of the TCI states”; thus, the UE identifies a TCI state among the plurality of TCI states (the first TCI state) based on the QCL parameters/TCI state used for receiving the PDCCH),
wherein the PDCCH and at least one of the plurality of PDSCHs are associated with a same Quasi-CoLocation (QCL) information (disclosed throughout; see [0241]-[0242], for example, which discloses that the same QCL may be associated with the PDCCH and at least one PDSCH), and
perform channel estimation based on the plurality of TCI states (disclosed throughout; see [0182], for example, which discloses that the UE performs channel estimation based on these TCI states); wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to: monitor a group common PDCCH before receiving a paging PDCCH (as indicated in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), this limitation is not supported in the original disclosure and is therefore not given weight herein); and determine a listen before talk failure if the group common PDCCH is not received for a plurality of channel state information-reference signal/tracking reference signal (CSI-RS/TRS) identifiers (as indicated in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), this limitation is not supported in the original disclosure and is therefore not given weight herein).
Jung ’442 does not explicitly disclose the limitation of transmit a paging message, wherein a scheduling request (SR) procedure is initiated based on the paging message. However, Jung ’754 discloses transmitting a paging message to a UE that initiates a SR procedure (the transmission of an SR by the UE). For example, see [0163], for example, which states that the “UE can request the RAN and CN to stop paging upon receiving a paging message by responding with a SR that includes a stop paging indication”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jung ’442 to transmit a paging message that initiates an SR procedure. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the UE to request that the paging stop when the paging is not required by the UE as suggested by Jung ’754.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-13, 16-20, and 22 are allowed.
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 Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights