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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 11-19 are pending.
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 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-2007763 “Enhancements on Multi-beam Operation” (hereinafter ZTE) in view of R1-2007546 “Enhancement on multi-beam operation” (hereinafter Futurewei) and US 2023/0050541(hereinafter Yi) and (US 2022/0183032 (hereinafter Papasakellariou).
Regarding claims 11, 15 and 19, ZTE teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) for a beam operation, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station (BS), a radio resource control (RRC) configuration for configuring a set of joint transmission configuration indication (TCI) states (2.2.2; Figure 5: details Stage 1: RRC Signaling Configure multiple unified TCI states); receiving, from the BS, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for activating a subset of joint TCI states in the set of joint TCI states (2.2.2; Figure 5: details Stage 2: MAC-CE Signaling Activating one or more states from the RRC pool); receiving, from the BS, the DCI indicating a joint TCI state included in the subset of joint TCI states activated by the MAC CE (2.2.2; Figure 5: details Stage 3 DCI Signaling Select one state; Mode-1: Single command – joint indication for PDSCH, PUSCH, PDCCH, PUCCH, CSI-RS and/or SRS).
ZTE does not explicitly teach wherein the MAC CE is used to map the subset of joint TCI states to codepoints of a TCI field in downlink control information (DCI); determining whether the DCI includes a downlink (DL) assignment; in response to receiving the DCI, transmitting first hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information in a case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment; determining whether a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is received from the BS; and in response to receiving the DCI and determining that the PDSCH is received, transmitting second HARQ-ACK information in a case that the DCI includes the DL assignment.
However, Futurewei teaches wherein the MAC CE is used to map the subset of joint TCI states to codepoints of a TCI field in downlink control information (DCI) (2.3: details MAC-CE was enhanced to enable the mapping of two TCI states to one TCI codepoint such that one TCI codepoint in DCI TCI field can indicated two different TCI states, one for each TRP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ZTE to incorporate the teachings of Futurewei and include wherein the MAC CE is used to map the subset of joint TCI states to codepoints of a TCI field in downlink control information (DCI) of Futurewei with ZTE. Doing so would provide the advantage of supporting multiple simultaneous active TCI states at a UE (Futurewei, at 2.3).
Moreover, Yi teaches determining whether the DCI includes a downlink (DL) assignment ([0246]: details configuration parameters may indicate/comprise a parameter to indicate whether to use DAI for the DCI format 0_2 (e.g., Downlinkassignmentindex-ForDCIFormat0_2)... The second DAI may be present when the base station may transmit configuration parameters indicating a plurality of HARQ-ACK codebook groups); in response to receiving the DCI, transmitting first hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information in a case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment ([0244][0253]: details The second DAI may be present when the base station may transmit configuration parameters indicating a plurality of HARQ-ACK codebook groups; “may be present” teaches “does not include”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ZTE to incorporate the teachings of Yi and include determining whether the DCI includes a downlink (DL) assignment; in response to receiving the DCI, transmitting first hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information in a case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment of Yi with ZTE. Doing so would simplify wireless device complexity or reduce processing (Yi, at paragraph [0330]).
Furthermore, Papasakellariou teaches determining whether a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is received from the BS ([0141]: details the UE determines whether a PDSCH reception is scheduled by a DCI format or is a SPS PDSCH reception); and in response to receiving the DCI and determining that the PDSCH is received, transmitting second HARQ-ACK information in a case that the DCI includes the DL assignment ([0141]: details When the PDSCH reception is scheduled by a DCI format, the UE provides HARQ-ACK information according to the first reporting mode… The UE provides HARQ-ACK information according to the second reporting mode (step 1140)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ZTE to incorporate the teachings of Papasakellariou and include determining whether a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is received from the BS; and in response to receiving the DCI and determining that the PDSCH is received, transmitting second HARQ-ACK information in a case that the DCI includes the DL assignment of Papasakellariou with ZTE. Doing so would improve communication system (Papasakellariou, at paragraph [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, ZTE does not explicitly teach wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment, a bit value corresponding to a redundancy version (RV) field included in the DCI is set to a specific value.
However, Yi teaches teach wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment ([0244][0253]: details The second DAI may be present when the base station may transmit configuration parameters indicating a plurality of HARQ-ACK codebook groups; “may be present” teaches “does not include”), a bit value corresponding to a redundancy version (RV) field included in the DCI is set to a specific value ([0244]: details A redundancy version (RV) field may indicate one or more RV values (e.g., a RV value may be 0, 2, 3, or 1) for one or more PUSCHs scheduled over the one or more slots of the scheduled cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ZTE to incorporate the teachings of Yi and include wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment, a bit value corresponding to a redundancy version (RV) field included in the DCI is set to a specific value of Yi with ZTE. Doing so would simplify wireless device complexity or reduce processing (Yi, at paragraph [0330]).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, ZTE does not explicitly teach wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment, a bit value corresponding to a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field included in the DCI is set to a specific value.
However, Yi teaches wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment ([0244][0253]: details The second DAI may be present when the base station may transmit configuration parameters indicating a plurality of HARQ-ACK codebook groups; “may be present” teaches “does not include”), a bit value corresponding to a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field included in the DCI is set to a specific value ([0244][0253]: details A DCI field of modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (shown as MCS in FIG. 19) may indicate a coding rate and a modulation scheme for the scheduled uplink data… MCS field being set to a second predetermined value (e.g., one(s), ‘1, . . . , 1’)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ZTE to incorporate the teachings of Yi and include wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment, a bit value corresponding to a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field included in the DCI is set to a specific value of Yi with ZTE. Doing so would simplify wireless device complexity or reduce processing (Yi, at paragraph [0330]).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, ZTE does not explicitly teach wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment, a bit value corresponding to the frequency domain resource assignment (FDRA) field is set to a specific value.
However, Yi teaches wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment ([0244][0253]: details The second DAI may be present when the base station may transmit configuration parameters indicating a plurality of HARQ-ACK codebook groups; “may be present” teaches “does not include”), a bit value corresponding to the frequency domain resource assignment (FDRA) field is set to a specific value ([0253]: details the FDRA field being set to a third predetermined value (e.g., zero(s) for resource allocation type 0 or a resource allocation type 2 with mu=1, one(s) for resource allocation type 1 or the resource allocation type 2 with mu=0)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ZTE to incorporate the teachings of Yi and include wherein in the case that the DCI does not include the DL assignment, a bit value corresponding to the frequency domain resource assignment (FDRA) field is set to a specific value of Yi with ZTE. Doing so would simplify wireless device complexity or reduce processing (Yi, at paragraph [0330]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Yi does not teach “determining whether the DCI includes a DL assignment” because DAI field is fundamentally different from a DL assignment. Applicant alleges that “DL assignment generally refers to downlink scheduling information carried by the DCI for scheduling a PDSCH, whereas a DAI is merely a field that may be included in a DCI for purposes such that HARQ-ACK cookbook generation and related procedures” but the claims do not recite this feature. The claims do not explicitly recite any definition for DL assignment. So, downlink assignment can be interpreted under BRI as downlink assignment index. Examiner suggests explicitly reciting the functional definition of DL assignment to distinguish from the DAI of Yi.
Applicant also alleges that Yi does not teach any determination regarding whether a DL assignment is included in the DCI nor does it disclose transmitting HARQ-ACK information based on such a determination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yi details parameter to indicate whether to use DAI for the DCI. This parameter teaches the claimed feature because it indicates whether or not DL assignment is utilized according to the DCI. Examiner suggests explicitly reciting how the determination is “based on” and how the DL assignment is “included” to distinguish from the prior art. Also, since Applicant admits that the DCI of Yi does not include the DL assignment as recited in the conditional phrase, Yi teaches this limitation. Additionally, Applicant asserts “may be present” of Yi is not the same as the presence or absence of a DL assignment. Yi details “may be present” which means there is a case where the DAI is present and another case where the DAI is not present so Yi teaches the case of DL assignment is not included as claimed. Even if Applicant’s assertion that Yi teaches only an optional presence, Yi still teaches the limitation because the argued limitation merely recites one conditional “in a case that” so, it still teaches the limitation as claimed because an option of Yi teaches the one case as recited in the limitation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to “in response to receiving the DCI and determining that the PDSCH is received, transmitting second HARQ-ACK information in a case that the DCI includes the DL assignment” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Medles (US 2019/0253196) details reducing uplink overhead in mobile communications.
Khoshnevisan (US 2021/0029641) details HARQ handling for discontinuous reception.
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 Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights