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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 April 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 7 April 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 7 April 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to claims 1, 9-11, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9-11, and 19 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 are 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(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant’s specification does not provide support for “determine, based on the DFI flag, whether the DCI format is scheduling a PUSCH or whether the DCI format is not scheduling a PUSCH”. ¶67, Table 1 of the applicant’s specification shows that DFI flag is a DCI field. However, that is the only mention of DFI flag in the entire specification. There is no description of determining anything based on the DFI flag.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 9-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “decode a downlink…determine, based on the…wherein when the DCI format schedules…wherein when the DCI format is not scheduling…”. It is unclear whether the limitations share an “and” or “or” relationship. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 9-10 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claim 1 as set forth above.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “decode a downlink…determine, based on the…wherein when the DCI format schedules…wherein when the DCI format is not scheduling…”. It is unclear whether the limitations share an “and” or “or” relationship. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “encode a downlink…wherein when the DCI format schedules…wherein when the DCI format is not scheduling…”. It is unclear whether the limitations share an “and” or “or” relationship. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
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) 1, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. WO 2019/234929 A1 in view of 3GPP TS 38.212 V16.5.0 (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP”). Note 3GPP was cited by the applicant in the IDS filed 6 September 2023.
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 a DCI format 0_1 (¶56; see figure 1: decode DCI format 0_1).
Although Yoshioka teaches “An apparatus…DCI format 0_1,” Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose “includes a downlink…feedback information”.
However, 3GPP teaches the DCI format comprising a DCI format 0_1 and includes a downlink feedback information (DFI) flag (§7.3.1, page 85, table 7.3.1-1 and §7.3.1.1.2, pages 91-92: DCI format 0_1 includes DFI flag);
determine, based on the DFI flag, whether the DCI format is scheduling a PUSCH or whether the DCI format is not scheduling a PUSCH (§7.3.1, page 85, table 7.3.1-1 and §7.3.1.1.2, pages 91-92: DCI format 0_1 is either for scheduling PUSCH or indicating downlink feedback information as indicated by and determined based on the DFI flag);
wherein when the DCI format schedules the PUSCH, fields of the DCI format are interpreted for PUSCH scheduling and include 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 field (§7.3.1, page 85, table 7.3.1-1 and §7.3.1.1.2, pages 92 and 94: when DCI format 0_1 schedules PUSCH as indicated by the DFI flag “Otherwise…” the MCS, NDI, RV, HARQ, and TPC fields are for the PUSCH scheduling);
wherein when the DCI format is not scheduling the PUSCH, one or more of the MCS field, the HARQ filed, the redundancy version field, the new data indicator field, and the TPC command field are interpreted for receiving downlink feedback information (§7.3.1, page 85, table 7.3.1-1 and §7.3.1.1.2, page 92: when the DCI format 0_1 indicates downlink feedback information as indicated by the DFI flag, HARQ and TPC fields are used for the CG-DFI).
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 “includes a downlink…feedback information” as taught by 3GPP because it provides Yoshioka’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of using DCI format 0_1 according to the standard for increased compatibility with other devices/stations (3GPP, §7.3.1.1.2).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
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 a DCI format 0_1 (¶¶29 and 56; see figure 1: encode DCI format 0_1).
Although Yoshioka teaches “An apparatus…DCI format 0_1,” Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose “includes a downlink…feedback information”.
However, 3GPP teaches the DCI format comprising a DCI format 0_1 and includes a downlink feedback information (DFI) flag (§7.3.1, page 85, table 7.3.1-1 and §7.3.1.1.2, pages 91-92: DCI format 0_1 includes DFI flag) indicating whether the DCI format is scheduling a PUSCH or whether the DCI format is not scheduling a PUSCH (§7.3.1, page 85, table 7.3.1-1 and §7.3.1.1.2, pages 91-92: DCI format 0_1 is either for scheduling PUSCH or indicating downlink feedback information as indicated by and determined based on the DFI flag);
wherein when the DCI format schedules the PUSCH, fields of the DCI format are to be interpreted by the UE for PUSCH scheduling and include 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 field (§7.3.1, page 85, table 7.3.1-1 and §7.3.1.1.2, pages 92 and 94: when DCI format 0_1 schedules PUSCH as indicated by the DFI flag “Otherwise…” the MCS, NDI, RV, HARQ, and TPC fields are for the PUSCH scheduling);
wherein when the DCI format is not scheduling the PUSCH, one or more of the MCS field, the HARQ filed, the redundancy version field, the new data indicator field, and the TPC command field are to be interpreted by the UE for receiving downlink feedback information (§7.3.1, page 85, table 7.3.1-1 and §7.3.1.1.2, page 92: when the DCI format 0_1 indicates downlink feedback information as indicated by the DFI flag, HARQ and TPC fields are used for the CG-DFI).
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 “includes a downlink…feedback information” as taught by 3GPP because it provides Yoshioka’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of using DCI format 0_1 according to the standard for increased compatibility with other devices/stations (3GPP, §7.3.1.1.2).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of 3GPP as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 3GPP R1-2101913 “Moderator summary#3 for multi-beam enhancement: Round 2” (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP’913”).
As to claim 9, Yoshioka in view of 3GPP teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Although Yoshioka in view of 3GPP teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” Yoshioka in view of 3GPP does not explicitly disclose “the UE comprises a plurality of antennas configured by the processing circuitry for multi-beam operation”.
However, 3GPP’913 teaches 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 taught by 3GPP’913 because it provides Yoshioka in view of 3GPP’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of lower beam application latency (3GPP’913, §2.3).
As to claim 10, Yoshioka in view of 3GPP, and further in view of 3GPP’913 teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Yoshioka further teaches the processing circuitry comprises baseband processor (¶170; see figure 9).
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 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
Prosecution Insights