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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 6 September 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “of the DCI,” in the final line. For consistency and clarification with the claim ending, it is recommended to change “of the DCI,” in final line to “of the DCI.”.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, and 19 recite the limitation "and/or". It is suggested to clarify the use of words instead of "/".
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the instructions to configure the processing circuitry to” in lines 3-4. For consistency and clarification with “instructions for execution by processing circuitry” in line 2 of claim 11, it is recommended to change “the instructions to configure the processing circuitry to” in lines 3-4 to “the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-42 of copending Application No. 18/558,153 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are in the same scope as claims 23-42 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshioka et al. WO 2019/234929 A1.
NOTE: Yoshioka et al. US 2021/0243761 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yoshioka”) will be used for translation purposes.
As to claim 1, Yoshioka teaches an apparatus for a user equipment (UE) (¶196; see figure 11) configured for operation in a fifth-generation (5G) new radio (NR) (5G-NR) system, the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry (¶196; see figure 11); and memory (¶196; see figure 11),
the processing circuitry configured to (¶196; see figure 11):
decode a downlink control information (DCI) format, the DCI format comprising one of DCI format 0_1 and DCI format 0_2 (¶56; see figure 1: decode DCI format 0_1);
wherein when the DCI format does not schedule a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and does not trigger a sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission, and when the DCI format triggers a channel state information (CSI) request including at least one of a CSI reference signal (CSI-RS) operation, a CSI interference measurement (CSI-IM), and a CSI report transmission (¶¶40-48, 57-58, 70, 87-94, and 96-98; see figures 1 and 4A-4B: the DCI format 0_1 has all HPN fields set to ‘0’, does not schedule PUSCH, does not trigger SRS, and triggers a CSI-RS activation or deactivation or a CSI report transmission activation or deactivation), the processing circuitry is configured to:
interpret one or more fields of the DCI format for PUSCH scheduling and/or SRS triggering as indicating additional information for the triggered CSI request (¶¶87-94 and 96-98; see figures 4A-4B: the PUSCH and/or SRS fields are used to indicate which CSI reporting is deactivated and which remains activated); and
perform the triggered CSI request using at least the information in the one or more fields of the DCI (¶¶87 and 97-98; see figures 4A-4B: deactivate/keep active the appropriate CSI reporting according to the “specific field (second field)”),
As to claim 2, Yoshioka teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to decode the DCI format to:
determine that the DCI format does not schedule the PUSCH when an UL-SCH indicator is present and is set to zero (¶¶89 and 98; see figure 4B: UL-SCH set to 0);
determine that the DCI format does not trigger the SRS transmission when an SRS request field is set to all zeros (¶¶93 and 98; see figure 4B: SRS request field set to 0); and
determine that the DCI format triggers the CSI request when a CSI request field is set to a non-zero value (¶¶40, 58, and 87; see figures 1 and 4A-4B: CSI request field set to non-zero value).
As to claim 3, Yoshioka teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the triggered CSI request includes at least one of an aperiodic CSI-RS operation, an CSI-IM and an aperiodic CSI report transmission (¶¶33 and 53: A-CSI operation or A-CSI report transmission).
As to claim 4, Yoshioka teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more fields of the DCI format for PUSCH scheduling and/or SRS triggering include one or more of:
a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field, a Hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) field, a redundancy version field, a new data indicator field, and a transmit power control (TPC) command for PUSCH field,
wherein the processing circuitry is to interpret the one or more fields to configure a resource allocation for the triggered CSI request (¶¶40-48, 57-58, 70, 87-84, and 96-98; see figures 1 and 4A-4B: specific/second field used for resource allocation configuration for triggered CSI operation or report transmission).
As to claim 5, Yoshioka teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more fields to configure the resource allocation for the triggered CSI request comprise at least one of:
CSI-RS resource mapping, a bandwidth part (BWP) identifier (BWP-ID) indicating a BWP for reception of a CSI-RS, and power control offset information (¶¶33, 59, 87-94, 96-98, 108, 111, and 114-115; see figures 1, 4A-4B, and 5B: CSI-RS slot/resource or BI field).
As to claim 6, Yoshioka teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein when the DCI format either schedules the PUSCH or the DCI format schedules the SRS transmission, the processing circuity is configured to interpret the one or more fields of the DCI format for the PUSCH scheduling and/or the SRS triggering (¶¶60-61: PUSCH scheduled by DCI).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 19, Yoshioka teaches an apparatus for a gNodeB (gNB) (¶196; see figure 11) configured for operation in a fifth-generation (5G) new radio (NR) (5G-NR) system, the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry (¶196; see figure 11); and memory (¶196; see figure 11),
the processing circuitry configured to (¶196; see figure 11):
encode a downlink control information (DCI) format for transmission to a user equipment (UE), the DCI format comprising one of DCI format 0_1 and DCI format 0_2 (¶¶29 and 56; see figure 1: encode DCI format 0_1);
wherein when the DCI format does not schedule a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and does not trigger a sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission, and when the DCI format triggers a channel state information (CSI) request including at least one of a CSI reference signal (CSI-RS) operation, a CSI interference measurement (CSI-IM), and a CSI report transmission (¶¶40-48, 57-58, 70, 87-94, and 96-98; see figures 1 and 4A-4B: the DCI format 0_1 has all HPN fields set to ‘0’, does not schedule PUSCH, does not trigger SRS, and triggers a CSI-RS activation or deactivation or a CSI report transmission activation or deactivation), the processing circuitry is configured to:
encode one or more fields of the DCI format for PUSCH scheduling and/or SRS triggering as indicating additional information for the triggered CSI request (¶¶87-94 and 96-98; see figures 4A-4B: the PUSCH and/or SRS fields are used to indicate which CSI reporting is deactivated and which remains activated),
wherein the one or more fields of the DCI format for PUSCH scheduling and/or SRS triggering include one or more of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field, a Hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) field, a redundancy version field, a new data indicator field, and a transmit power control (TPC) command for PUSCH field (¶¶40-48, 57-58, 70, 87-84, and 96-98; see figures 1 and 4A-4B: specific/second field used for resource allocation configuration for triggered CSI operation or report transmission),
wherein the processing circuitry is to encode the one or more fields to configure a resource allocation for the triggered CSI request (¶¶29, 40-48, 57-58, 70, 87-84, and 96-98; see figures 1 and 4A-4B: DCI format 0_1 includes the encoded fields for resource allocation for the triggered CSI operation or report transmission), and
wherein the memory is configured to store the information in the one or more fields of the DCI (¶196; see figure 11).
As to claim 20, Yoshioka teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to encode the DCI format to:
include an UL-SCH indicator in the DCI format and set the UL-SCH indicator to zero to indicate that the DCI format does not schedule the PUSCH (¶¶29, 89, and 98; see figure 4B: UL-SCH set to 0);
set an SRS request field to all zeros to indicate that the DCI format does not trigger the SRS transmission (¶¶29, 93, and 98; see figure 4B: SRS request field set to 0; and
set a CSI request field to a non-zero value to indicate that the DCI format triggers the CSI request (¶¶29, 40, 58, and 87; see figures 1 and 4A-4B: CSI request field set to non-zero value), and
wherein the one or more fields to configure the resource allocation for the triggered CSI request comprise at least one of: CSI-RS resource mapping, a bandwidth part (BWP) identifier (BWP-ID) indicating a BWP for reception of a CSI-RS, and power control offset information (¶¶33, 59, 87-94, 96-98, 108, 111, and 114-115; see figures 1, 4A-4B, and 5B: CSI-RS slot/resource or BI field).
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of 3GPP R1-2101913 “Moderator summary#3 for multi-beam enhancement: Round 2” (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP”).
As to claim 7, Yoshioka teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Although Yoshioka teaches “The apparatus of claim 6,” Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose “when the DCI format…for beam indication”.
However, 3GPP teaches apparatus of claim 6, wherein when the DCI format does not schedule a PUSCH, does not trigger an SRS transmission, and does not trigger a CSI request, the processing circuitry is configured to interpret one or more fields of the DCI format for beam indication (§2.3: use existing DCI format 0_1/0_2 for beam indication when there is no scheduling (DL-SCH, UL-SCH, SRS, or CSI)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Yoshioka by including “seen the DCI format…for beam indication” as taught by 3GPP because it provides Yoshioka’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of lower beam application latency (3GPP, §2.3).
As to claim 8, Yoshioka in view of 3GPP teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
3GPP further teaches when the UE is configured for multi- transmission-reception point (m-TRP) operation, and
wherein when the one or more fields are interpreted for beam indication, the one or more fields may be decoded by the processing circuitry as indicating first and second transmission control indication (TCI) states, the first TCI state associated with a first TRP, the second TCI state associated with a second TRP, and
the processing circuitry is configured to apply the first and second TCI states for reception of reference signals from the first and second TRPs (§§2.2-2.4: UE configured for mTRP and there is a TCI state and beam per TRP/antenna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Yoshioka in view of 3GPP by including “when the UE…second TRPs” as further taught by 3GPP for the same rationale as set forth in claim 7 (3GPP, §2.3).
As to claim 9, Yoshioka in view of 3GPP teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
3GPP further teaches w the UE comprises a plurality of antennas configured by the processing circuitry for multi-beam operation (§§2.2-2.4: antenna panels for multi-beam operation of mTRP operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Yoshioka in view of 3GPP by including “the UE…multi-beam operation” as further taught by 3GPP for the same rationale as set forth in claim 7 (3GPP, §2.3).
As to claim 10, Yoshioka in view of 3GPP teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Yoshioka further teaches the processing circuitry comprises baseband processor (¶170; see figure 9).
As to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
3GPP TS 38.214 V16.5.0 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for data (Release 16)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469