DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 15 April 2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-30 were previously pending the Non-Final Rejection of 27 February 2026.
Claims 1, 12, 23, and 27 have been amended.
Claims 1-30 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 9 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the claims are allowable, because Sun et al. (US 2022/0045700), which was cited as the secondary reference in a prior art rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, at ¶ 78, supposedly not disclosing a Downlink Control Information (DCI) message with a bit field of configurable size indicating a Transmission Reception Point (TRP) mode, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Sun cannot disclose the subject matter at issue, because Sun discloses an e, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., DCI including a field of configurable bit size for configuring a TRP mode) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although 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, as claim 1 is currently written, a UE is to receive an indication of a number of bits to be used in a DCI message. Further requiring “the bits” to be “configured to indicate a transmission reception point (TRP) mode” does not necessarily require the DCI message to include a specific field or explicitly indicate a TRP mode. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the number of bits to be used in the DCI message appears to at least encompass that the size of the DCI message itself is an indication of a TRP mode, not that the DCI message comprises a field explicitly indicating a TRP mode. Thus, the claims appear to encompass where the DCI message is of configurable size, not necessarily a field within the DCI message, and the DCI message size may serve as a TRP mode indication.
Even if the claims were amended to narrow the scope of the DCI message to comprise a field of configurable size of 0 bits, 1 bit, or 2 bits, wherein the field explicitly indicates a TRP mode, not the size of the field itself, the prior art of record would still disclose such a claimed invention.
As provided in the Non-Final Rejection, specifically in the prior art rejection of claim 8 (Non Final pp. 9-10), Sun discloses wherein a DCI message may not contain any explicit indication of a TRP mode, which indicates use of a default multi-TRP mode (Sun ¶ 98), or relying on semi-persistent configuration to indicate continued use of a previously-configured TRP mode (Sun ¶¶ 98, 255). Modifying Lee with Sun to arrive at such a claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, because by not explicitly reconfiguring a TRP mode in a DCI message for configuring a default TRP mode or previously-configured TRP mode, bits may be saved in the DCI message (Sun ¶¶ 468, 479) and provide faster switching between bandwidth parts relative to relaying on RRC-based switching (Sun ¶ 98).
Further, as provided in the Non-Final Rejection, specifically in the prior art rejection of claim 9 (Non Final pp. 12-13), Sun et al. (US 2024/0073707, hereinafter Sun”) discloses a binary bit indicating a single-TRP mode or a multi-TRP mode. Before the effective filing date of the instant application, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Sun” to modify Lee-Sun to have a UE receive an indication in higher-layer signaling that a DCI message would include a 1-bit field configuring a TRP mode as either a single-TRP mode or a multi-TRP mode, because use of such a 1-bit field may improve the efficacy of a single DCI mode, particularly in the implementation of a beam failure recovery enhancement (Sun” ¶ 2).
Therefore, the claims are not limited to reception of an indication configuring a size of a field configuring a TRP mode in a DCI message, and if they were, then the prior art of record would still at least disclose a UE receiving an indication that such a field has a size consisting of 0 bits or 1 bit in the DCI message, the UE receiving the DCI message, and configuring the TRP mode accordingly.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Lee et al. (US 2022/0022233, hereinafter Lee) was cited in the previous Office action as the primary reference for disclosing user equipment (Figs. 1, 2, and ¶¶ 37, 71-72, 528-529) receiving an indication indicating a TRP mode configuration, including a multi-TRP-based Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC) mode and a multi-TRP enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) mode through RRC signaling associated with DCI (Fig. 17 and ¶¶ 436-437 and 439-441). Sun was cited for disclosing RRC signaling as indicating a DCI format of DCI, as including a Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) field for each TRP, received by a UE from which the UE determines a TRP mode. The UE determines the TRP mode based at least on the number of bits of the DCI, because, a reasonable reading of Sun must result in understanding that if a DCI format includes only a single TCI field, then single-TRP mode is necessarily indicated, and a DCI format with multiple TCI fields necessarily indicates a multi-TRP mode. Thus, as provided in the Non Final Rejection, above, and maintained below, Lee as modified by Sun and other cited prior art disclose the claimed invention, not Sun by itself.
For the reasons provided above, the rejection of claims 1-30 is maintained below, and adjusted as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 23, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 7 — “0 bit” should read as “0 bits”;
Regarding Claim 12, line 7 — “0 bit” should read as “0 bits”;
Regarding Claim 23, line 6 — “0 bit” should read as “0 bits”; and
Regarding Claim 27, line 6 — “0 bit” should read as “0 bits”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-30 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase “wherein the number of bits is indicated to be one of at least three configurable sizes comprising 0 bit, 1 bit, and 2 bits” renders the group from which a number of bits may be selected undefined, because the group is not close-ended.
A claim element defined by selection from a group of alternatives (a Markush grouping; see MPEP §§ 2117 and 2173.05(h)) requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196-97 (Fed. Cir. 2003). If the claim element is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. See MPEP § 2111.03.
Here, the Markush group of “0 bit, 1 bit, and 2 bits” is preceded by the transition phrase “comprising,” which is further preceded by the phrase “one of at least three”. If the group must have at least three options, using the transitional phrase “comprising” makes the claimed group encompass an infinite number of additional options as long as the total number of options is at least three. Thus, the group is indefinite.
Further, even if the transitional phrase at issue above is corrected from “comprising” to “consisting,” claim 1 would still be indefinite for apparently encompassing where a number of bits used in a downlink control information message is 0 bits, and the claimed UE being claims to receive the DCI message having 0 bits. However, receiving a message of 0 bits renders the meaning of “receiving” indefinite. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the case that a number of bits used in a DCI message is 0 bits, the term “receive” in line 8 of claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “to effectively come into possession of,” while the accepted meaning is “to come into possession of.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Specification, at ¶ 79, discloses configuration information as indicating a number of bits to be used in a DCI message for indication of a TRP mode configuration. If the claims were amended to delete “, the bits configured” in line 5 of claim 1, then claim 1 would no longer appear to encompass a UE receiving a DCI message having 0 bits.
Thus, claim 1 should be amended as follows:
1. (Currently Amended) A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
memory; and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to:
receive an indication of a number of bits to be used in a downlink control information (DCI) message consisting of 0 bits, 1 bit, and 2 bits; and
receive the DCI message having the number of bits to indicate the TRP mode configuration for the subsequent communications.
While the suggested amendment would allow claim 1 to meet the conditions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the claims may still be rejected in view of prior art indicated.
Regarding Claims 2-11, by depending on claim 1, claims 2-11 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1, and to not appear to remedy any of the issued indicated above.
Regarding Claims 12, 23, and 27, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 12, 23, and 27 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claims 13-22, 24-26, and 28-30, by depending on claims 12, 23, or 27, claims 13-22, 24-26, and 28-30 inherit the deficiencies of claims 12, 23, or 27, and to not appear to remedy any of the issued indicated above.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 14-19, 23-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0022233, hereinafter Lee) in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0045700).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Fig. 1 and ¶ 67 disclose a communication system including wireless devices disclosed as examples understood as user equipment (UE); ¶¶ 528-529 disclose that the disclosed embodiments may be used together), comprising:
a memory (Fig. 2 and ¶¶ 71-72 disclose the wireless device as including memory); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Id. disclosing the wireless device as including a processor controlling the memory — thus, they are disclosed as coupled, wherein the processor is configured to implement the description, functions, procedures, proposals, methods, and/or operational flowcharts disclosed throughout Lee), configured to:
receive an indication to indicate a transmission reception point (TRP) mode configuration for one or more subsequent communications (Fig. 17 and ¶¶ 439-441 disclose a UE receiving mode information from a base station (BS), including a multi-TRP-based ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) mode and a multi-TRP enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) mode through RRC signaling or higher layer signaling before or after receiving DCI); and
receive the DCI message (Fig. 17 and ¶¶ Fig. 17 and ¶¶ 436-437 disclose the UE receiving DCI from the BS).
Lee may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the indication is of a number of bits to be used in a downlink control information (DCI) message, the bits configured to indicate the transmission reception point (TRP) mode configuration for one or more subsequent communications, wherein the number of bits is indicated to be one of at least three configurable sizes comprising 0 bit, 1 bit, and 2 bits; and
wherein the DCI has the number of bits to indicate the TRP mode configuration for the subsequent communications.
However, in analogous art, Sun discloses:
wherein an indication is of a number of bits to be used in a downlink control information (DCI) message, the bits configured to indicate the transmission reception point (TRP) mode configuration for one or more subsequent communications (Fig. 9 and ¶ 128 disclose a UE receiving configuration information causing the UE to operate in a transmission/reception mode, including a single TRP mode and a multi-TRP mode; ¶ 133 discloses that a DCI format, of DCI received by a UE from a BS, causing the UE to determine to operate in a multi-TRP mode; and ¶ 138 discloses a DCI format or size of the DCI as based on the DCI including separate TCI fields or a single TCI field for each TRP — together, disclosing a UE receiving an indication of a DCI format, including the DCI’s size (i.e., number of bits), and determining to operate in an associated TRP mode; ¶ 129 discloses the UE configuring itself to operate in the determined TRP mode), wherein the number of bits is indicated to be one of at least three configurable sizes comprising 0 bit, 1 bit, and 2 bits (¶ 98 discloses multi-TRP as the default mode, and that only single-TRP mode needs to be specifically configured; and ¶ 255 discloses wherein configuration is semi-persistent — thus, a previously-configured TRP mode need not be specifically configured for the following data to be transmitted); and
wherein DCI has the number of bits to indicate the TRP mode configuration for the subsequent communications (¶ 138 discloses a DCI format or size of the DCI as based on the DCI including separate TCI fields or a single TCI field for each TRP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun to modify Lee in order to have a base station indicate a DCI format, including DCI size, to a UE that determines a TRP mode based on the DCI size/format, and configuring itself to operate in the determined TRP mode for subsequent transmissions as disclosed in Lee, Fig. 17 and ¶ 444, therein multi-TRP mode is the default mode. One would have been motivated to do this, because by using the number of bits of a DCI to indicate information, a base station may minimize the bit information in the DCI (bit saving) (Sun ¶¶ 468 and 479), and provide a faster way to switch in a bandwidth part relative to using an RRC-based switch (Sun ¶ 98), which appears to improve the efficiency of a wireless communication system since less bits would be needed to convey control information.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee-Sun disclose the UE of claim 1.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the DCI message has a configurable payload size.
However, in analogous art, Sun discloses wherein the DCI message has a configurable payload size (¶ 137 discloses, for multi-TRP mode, DCI including TCI fields indicating a TCI state of each TRP; and ¶ 138 discloses a DCI format or size of the DCI as based on the DCI including separate TCI fields or a single TCI field for each TRP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun to modify Lee in order to use a DCI format that can accommodate TRP configuration as needed. One would have been motivated to do this, because such flexibility enables the UE to be configured for an entire set of configurations (such as physical downlink shared channel configuration) for each TRP, thereby making configuration more efficient (Sun ¶ 137).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee-Sun disclose the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication of the number of bits to be used in the DCI message, are configured to:
receive the indication via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (Fig. 17 and ¶¶ 439-441 disclose a UE receiving mode information from a base station (BS), including a multi-TRP-based ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) mode and a multi-TRP enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) mode through RRC signaling before or after receiving DCI).
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the indication is of the number of bits.
However, in analogous art, Sun discloses wherein the indication is of the number of bits (Fig. 9 and ¶ 128 disclose a UE receiving configuration information causing the UE to operate in a transmission/reception mode, including a single TRP mode and a multi-TRP mode; ¶ 133 discloses that a DCI format, of DCI received by a UE from a BS, causing the UE to determine to operate in a multi-TRP mode; and ¶ 138 discloses a DCI format or size of the DCI as based on the DCI including separate TCI fields or a single TCI field for each TRP — together, disclosing a UE receiving an indication of a DCI format, including the DCI’s size (i.e., number of bits), and determining to operate in an associated TRP mode; ¶ 129 discloses the UE configuring itself to operate in the determined TRP mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun to modify Lee in order to have a base station indicate a DCI format, including DCI size, to a UE that determines a TRP mode based on the DCI size/format, and configuring itself to operate in the determined TRP mode for subsequent transmissions as disclosed in Lee, Fig. 17 and ¶ 444. One would have been motivated to do this, because by using the number of bits of a DCI to indicate information, a base station may minimize the bit information in the DCI (bit saving) (Sun ¶¶ 468 and 479), which appears to improve the efficiency of a wireless communication system since less bits would be needed to convey control information.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee-Sun disclose the UE of claim 4.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the number of bits to be used in the DCI message is based at least in part on a DCI type of the DCI message.
However, in analogous art, Sun discloses wherein the indication of the number of bits to be used in the DCI message is based at least in part on a DCI type of the DCI message (¶ 133 discloses that a DCI format, of DCI received by a UE from a BS, causing the UE to determine to operate in a multi-TRP mode; and ¶ 138 discloses a DCI format or size of the DCI as based on the DCI including separate TCI fields or a single TCI field for each TRP in multi-TRP mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun to modify Lee in order to have a base station indicate a DCI format, including DCI size, to a UE that determines a TRP mode based on the DCI size/format, and configuring itself to operate in the determined TRP mode for subsequent transmissions as disclosed in Lee, Fig. 17 and ¶ 444. One would have been motivated to do this, because by using the number of bits of a DCI to indicate information, a base station may minimize the bit information in the DCI (bit saving) (Sun ¶¶ 468 and 479), which appears to improve the efficiency of a wireless communication system since less bits would be needed to convey control information.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee-Sun disclose the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the indication of the number of bits to be used in the DCI message applies to DCI messages received within a time window after receiving the indication of the number of bits to be used in the DCI message (¶ 439 discloses the mode information as related to a first mode in which a plurality of data based on the same information is transmitted — thus, at least implying that the TRP mode is applied for the period in which the data to be transmitted, for which DCI was transmitted, is transmitted), or
wherein the indication of the number of bits to be used in the DCI message applies to DCI messages until a reception of a subsequent indication of the number of bits to be used in the DCI message (¶ 255 discloses PDSCH configuration, which includes indicating the TRP mode, as semi-persistent (SPS) from higher layer signaling (i.e., RRC)).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee-Sun disclose the UE of claim 6,
Lee discloses wherein, after the time window, the number of bits to be used in subsequent DCI messages is a previously configured number of bits (¶ 255 discloses PDSCH configuration, which includes indicating the TRP mode, as semi-persistent (SPS) from higher layer signaling (i.e., RRC)).
Lee may not explicitly disclose, alternatively, wherein, after the time window, the number of bits to be used in subsequent DCI messages is a default number of bits.
However, in analogous art, Sun discloses wherein, after the time window, the number of bits to be used in subsequent DCI messages is a default number of bits (¶ 98 discloses multi-TRP as the default mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun to modify Lee in order to have a base station indicate a DCI format, including DCI size, to a UE that determines a TRP mode based on the DCI size/format, and configuring itself to operate in the determined TRP mode for subsequent transmissions as disclosed in Lee, Fig. 17 and ¶ 444, therein multi-TRP mode is the default mode. One would have been motivated to do this, because by using the number of bits of a DCI to indicate information, a base station may minimize the bit information in the DCI (bit saving) (Sun ¶¶ 468 and 479), and provide a faster way to switch in a bandwidth part relative to using an RRC-based switch (Sun ¶ 98), which appears to improve the efficiency of a wireless communication system since less bits would be needed to convey control information.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee-Sun disclose the UE of claim 1.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the number of bits is zero and the TRP mode configuration is a default TRP mode configuration, or
wherein the number of bits is zero and the TRP mode configuration is a previously configured TRP mode configuration.
However, in analogous art, Sun discloses wherein the number of bits is zero and the TRP mode configuration is a default TRP mode configuration (¶ 98 discloses multi-TRP as the default mode, and that only single-TRP mode needs to be specifically configured), or
wherein the number of bits is zero and the TRP mode configuration is a previously configured TRP mode configuration (Id.; and ¶ 255 discloses wherein configuration is semi-persistent — thus, a previously-configured TRP mode need not be specifically configured for the following data to be transmitted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun to modify Lee in order to have a base station indicate a DCI format, including DCI size, to a UE that determines a TRP mode based on the DCI size/format, and configuring itself to operate in the determined TRP mode for subsequent transmissions as disclosed in Lee, Fig. 17 and ¶ 444, therein multi-TRP mode is the default mode. One would have been motivated to do this, because by using the number of bits of a DCI to indicate information, a base station may minimize the bit information in the DCI (bit saving) (Sun ¶¶ 468 and 479), and provide a faster way to switch in a bandwidth part relative to using an RRC-based switch (Sun ¶ 98), which appears to improve the efficiency of a wireless communication system since less bits would be needed to convey control information.
Regarding Claims 12, 14-19, 23-25, and 27-29, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 12, 14-19, 23-25, and 27-29 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 1 and 3-8, and are rejected under the same reasoning. Additionally, Lee discloses a base station comprising memory coupled to a processor configured to perform the embodiments described throughout the disclosure at Fig. 2 and ¶ 73.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Sun as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2024/0023086, hereinafter Sun').
Regarding Claim 2, Lee-Sun disclose the UE of claim 1.
Lee-Sun may not explicitly disclose wherein the DCI message indicates a selection of one of:
a single-TRP mode associated with a first sounding reference signal (SRS) resource set,
a single-TRP mode associated with a second SRS resource set,
a multi-TRP mode having the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set, with the first SRS resource set prioritized over the second SRS resource set, or
a multi-TRP mode having the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set, with the second SRS resource set prioritized over the first SRS resource set.
However, in analogous art, Sun’ discloses wherein the DCI message indicates a selection of one of:
a single-TRP mode associated with a first sounding reference signal (SRS) resource set (¶ 122-124 disclose DCI indicating “00” as an SRS resource set selection parameter associating single-TRP (s-TRP) mode with a 1st SRS resources set (TRP1)),
a single-TRP mode associated with a second SRS resource set (¶ 125 discloses DCI indicating “01” as an SRS resource set selection parameter associating single-TRP (s-TRP) mode with a 2nd SRS resources set (TRP2)),
a multi-TRP mode having the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set, with the first SRS resource set prioritized over the second SRS resource set (¶¶ 126-127 disclose DCI indicating “10” an SRS resource set selection parameter associating multi-TRP (m-TRP) mode with TRP1 and TRP2, wherein TRP1 is indicated as being transmitted first according to an order of mapping a 1st field to TRP1 and a 2nd field to TRP2), or
a multi-TRP mode having the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set, with the second SRS resource set prioritized over the first SRS resource set (¶¶ 128-129 disclose DCI indicating “11” an SRS resource set selection parameter associating multi-TRP (m-TRP) mode with TRP1 and TRP2, wherein TRP1 is indicated as being transmitted first according to an order of mapping a 1st field to TRP2 and a 2nd field to TRP1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun' to modify Lee-Sun in order to indicate associated (a) SRS resource set(s) a TRP mode in DCI. One would have been motivated to do this, because such an indication enables a UE to implement dynamic switching of s-TRP and m-TRP PUSCH (Sun’ ¶ 122).
Regarding Claim 13, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 13 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 2, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 9, 11, 20, 22, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Sun as applied to claims 1, 12, 23, and 27 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2024/0073707, hereinafter Sun").
Regarding 9, Lee-Sun disclose the UE of claim 1.
Lee-Sun may not explicitly disclose wherein the number of bits is one and the DCI message indicates the TRP mode configuration from a subset of candidate TRP mode configurations.
However, in analogous art, Sun” discloses wherein the number of bits is one and the DCI message indicates the TRP mode configuration from a subset of candidate TRP mode configurations (Fig. 3 and ¶ 45 disclose a MAC CE switch indicator as a binary bit indicating a single-TRP mode or a multi-TRP mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun" to modify Lee-Sun in order to indicate a switch between TRP modes with a single, binary bit. One would have been motivated to do this, because use of a single bit for this indication may help the implementation of a beam failure recovery enhancement for a single downlink control information mode (Sun” ¶ 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee-Sun-Sun” disclose the UE of claim 9, wherein the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations comprises:
candidate TRP mode configurations associated with a single-TRP mode (Fig. 3 and ¶ 45 disclose a MAC CE switch indicator as a binary bit indicating a single-TRP mode or a multi-TRP mode), or
candidate TRP mode configurations associated with a multi-TRP mode (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun" to modify Lee-Sun in order to indicate a switch between TRP modes with a single, binary bit. One would have been motivated to do this, because use of a single bit for this indication may help the implementation of a beam failure recovery enhancement for a single downlink control information mode (Sun” ¶ 2).
Regarding Claims 20, 22, 26, and 30, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 20, 22, 26, and 30 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 9 and 11, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Sun-Sun" as applied to claims 9 and 20 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0080148, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee-Sun-Sun” disclose the UE of claim 9.
Lee-Sun may not explicitly disclose wherein the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations is based at least in part on one or more of:
a communication protocol that identifies the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations from a set of candidate TRP mode configurations, or
an indication of the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations from the set of candidate TRP mode configurations.
However, in analogous art, Sun” discloses wherein the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations is based at least in part on one or more of:
an indication of the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations from the set of candidate TRP mode configurations (Fig. 3 and ¶ 45 disclose a MAC CE switch indicator as a binary bit indicating a single-TRP mode or a multi-TRP mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun" to modify Lee-Sun in order to indicate a switch between TRP modes with a single, binary bit. One would have been motivated to do this, because use of a single bit for this indication may help the implementation of a beam failure recovery enhancement for a single downlink control information mode (Sun” ¶ 2).
Lee-Sun-Sun” may not explicitly disclose wherein the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations is based at least in part on one or more of:
a communication protocol that identifies the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations from a set of candidate TRP mode configurations.
However, in analogous art, Wang discloses wherein the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations is based at least in part on one or more of:
a communication protocol that identifies the subset of candidate TRP mode configurations from a set of candidate TRP mode configurations (¶¶ 49-54 discloses that in an existing protocol multi-TRP is specifically defined in terms of channel state information (CSI) report configuration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wang to modify Lee-Sun-Sun" in order to require use of multi-TRP for a protocol out of possible TRP modes, including single TRP and multi-TRP. One would have been motivated to do this, because protocols, such as that disclosed in Wang, represent agreements and standardizations used in industry to enable wireless communication (Wang ¶¶ 31, 55).
Regarding Claim 21, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 21 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 10, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
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 THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights