Detail Action
This office action is a response to an amendment submitted on 04/10/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-9 are pending for examination.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/31/2024. These drawings are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1,3, 5, 6 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 7 have been cancelled.
Claim 9 has been newly added.
Response to Arguments
The objection to title has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amended title.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized a following;
Applicant argued that Prior Arts Farag in view of Zhou “does not teach or suggest that “processor that controls the activation of the TCI state based on the MAC CE, wherein when the MAC CE includes the field indicating a first time period and the field indicating a second time period, the control section activates a first TCI state after the first time period has elapsed since the given timing, and activates a second TCI state after the second time period has elapsed since the given timing” .
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the current above arguments.
In response to applicant's argument, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Applicant’s arguments focus on whether the Prior Arts disclosed the exact claim language in isolation, rather than whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art. The rejection properly relies on the combined Prior Arts Farag and Zhou, where Farag teaches relevant TCI-state operation and timing-related configuration, while Zhou teaches timing-based activation of TCI states associated with MAC CE signaling. Zhou specifically teaches of the activation of the TCI state based on the MAC CE, when the MAC CE includes the field indicating a first time period and the field indicating a second time period [Figs.3, 6; Par. 111, 140- 141 teaches TCI state is activated by MAC- CE by selecting from candidate TCI states] while Farag teaches the processor activates a first TCI state after the first time period has elapsed since the given timing, and activates a second TCI state after the second time period has elapsed since the given timing [Farag: Fig. 28; Par. 300- 303; A TCI signaled in a DCI at time t1 becomes effective at time t1+timeDurationForQCL, as illustrated in FIG. 28 (and also step 1106 of FIG. 11 ). The timeDurationForQCL is also referred to as beam application time. As illustrated in FIG. 28 , timeDurationForQCL is the time required for the new TCI state to be activate]. It’s obvious to combined that Zhou’s teaching about activating and selecting from candidate TCI state based on the received MAC-CE by using Farag’s teaching of new TCI time is becoming effective at time t1+. It’s also disclosed the claimed features of activating TCI states wherein each time period of TCI states such as first, second TCI sates has elapsed. The fact that the references describe these features using different terminology does not avoid the rejection where the claimed functionality would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the arts.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag et al. (US 20240179733 A1), hereinafter “Farag”; and in further view of Zhou et al. (US 20230300851 A1), hereinafter “Zhou”.
Regarding claim 1, Farag teaches A terminal comprising: receiver that receives a Medium Access Control control element (MAC Control Element (CE)) including a field indicating a time period from a given timing [Farag: Figs. 11, 20; Par. 159- 160; Par. 261- 270 teaches UE receive MAC CE with TCI states where TCI signaled at time becomes effective and time-duration] until activation of a transmission configuration indication state (TCI state) [Farag: Par. 261- 270 further teaches timed-duration is time required for next/new TCI state to be activate]; the processor activates a first TCI state after the first time period has elapsed since the given timing, and activates a second TCI state after the second time period has elapsed since the given timing Farag: Fig. 28; Par. 300- 303; A TCI signaled in a DCI at time t1 becomes effective at time t1+timeDurationForQCL, as illustrated in FIG. 28 (and also step 1106 of FIG. 11 ). The timeDurationForQCL is also referred to as beam application time. As illustrated in FIG. 28 , timeDurationForQCL is the time required for the new TCI state to be activate].
PNG
media_image1.png
522
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Farag does not teach processor that controls the activation of the TCI state based on the MAC CE, wherein when the MAC CE includes the field indicating a first time period and the field indicating a second time period.
Nevertheless, Zhou, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches a control section that controls the activation of the TCI state based on the MAC CE [Zhou: Figs.3, 6; Par. 111, 140- 141 teaches TCI state is activated by MAC-CE by selecting from candidate TCI states].
PNG
media_image2.png
494
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Zhou for controlling of TCI activation. The teaching of Zhou, when implemented in the Farag system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform data transmit or control information [Zhou: Par. 63]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Farag in the Zhou system in order to improve configuring of TCI state via MAC-CE [Zhou: Par. 15].
Regarding claim 3, the combined Farag in view of Zhou teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Farag in view of Zhou further teaches when the MAC CE includes the field indicating a first time period and the field indicating a second time period, the processor activates a first TCI state after the first time period has elapsed since the given timing, and activates a second TCI state after a sum of the first time period and the second time period has elapsed since the given timing [Farag: Fig. 28; Par. 301 teaches of TCI state signaling with time t1+timeduration which is the time required for the new TCI to be activate].
Regarding claim 4, the combined Farag in view of Zhou teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Farag in view of Zhou further teaches the given timing is a timing at which an uplink control channel having a Hybrid Automatic Repeat request ACKnowledgement (HARQ-ACK) corresponding to a downlink shared channel for conveying the MAC CE is transmitted [Farag: See Fig. 28 where TCI state update corresponding PUCCH of HARQ-ACK].
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 9, the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combined Farag in view of Zhou teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 3. Farag in view of Zhou further teaches the given timing is a timing at which an uplink control channel having a Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest ACKnowledgement (HARQ-ACK) corresponding to a downlink shared channel for conveying the MAC CE is transmitted [Farag: See Fig. 28 where TCI state update corresponding PUCCH of HARQ-ACK].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
f
Prosecution Insights