21DETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8-5-2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 35-36 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the application was directed to the determination to perform a beam switch, while the new claims are directed to the reconfiguration of an antenna array.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 35-36 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-16-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the argument: “Applicant respectfully submits that KOSKELA does not disclose at least "perform[ing], based at least in part on the indication of the switch, a beam switching operation to switch to a first UE beam from a second UE beam, wherein the first UE beam is selected during the UE beam refinement procedure" in response to "receiv[ing], after the UE beam refinement procedure, an indication of a switch to the first network node beam from a second network node beam, wherein the indication of the switch comprises a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE)," as recited in amended claim 1 (with emphasis added). This is because, for example, there is no disclosure in KOSKELA of receiving a MAC-CE switch indication after the UE beam refinement procedure to trigger "switch[ing] to a first UE beam from a second UE beam, wherein the first UE beam is selected during the UE beam refinement procedure," as recited in amended claim 1, whereas KOSKELA recites that "the network may select a smaller set," "MAC layer signaling (MAC CE) could be used to send a beam index," and "the beam change is done right after transmitting/receiving ACK.".”; the examiner’s position is that new portions of Koskela are been added to the rejection of record to show even more clearly the argued limitations.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10-12, 15, 19-21, 23, 25-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koskela 12034502.
As to claim 1, Koskela discloses a user equipment (UE) [210,306,710] for wireless communication (see col. 1, lines 20-25), comprising:
one or more memories [725]; and one or more processors [720], coupled to the one or more memories, which are, individually or in any combination (see fig. 7), configured to:
perform a beam selection procedure (see col. 3, lines 20-30; col. 16, lines 28-30);
receive, after the beam selection procedure and for a UE beam refinement procedure, a reference signal [BRS or BRRS] via a first network node beam associated with a network node beam refinement procedure (see col. 1, line 64 – col. 2, line 5; col. 6, lines 35-41); and
receive, after the UE beam refinement procedure, an indication of a switch to the first network node beam from a second network node beam, wherein the indication of the switch comprises a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (see col. 9, lines 39-43; col. 10; lines 34-39) and perform, based at least in part on the indication of the switch, a beam switching operation to switch to a first UE beam from a second UE beam, wherein the first UE beam is selected during the UE beam refinement procedure [Communication then continues on beam B] (see col. 10, lines 38-39; col. 13, lines 7-8).
As to claim 2, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first network node beam is associated with a third network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure and the second network node beam is associated with a fourth network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure [Please see examiner notes about associations, beam has no measurable difference] (see fig. 1-3).
As to claim 3, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first network node beam and the second network node beam are associated with a third network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure [Please see examiner notes about associations, beam has no measurable difference] (see fig. 1-3).
As to claim 4, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to: switch, based at least in part on the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam, to a first UE beam from a second UE beam [change the labels of the beams] (see col. 8, lines 4-8).
As to claim 6, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE beam refinement procedure is a first UE beam refinement procedure, and wherein the reference signal is a first reference signal (see col. 6, lines 35-41), and wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to: receive, for a second UE beam refinement procedure, a second reference signal via a third network node beam [procedure repeats] (see col. 16-19); and switch, based at least in part on a timer, from the first UE beam to the second UE beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8; col. 9, lines 2-20).
As to claim 10, Koskela discloses network node [770] for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories [755]; and one or more processors [752], coupled to the one or more memories (see fig. 7), which are, individually or in any combination, configured to:
perform a beam selection procedure (see col. 3, lines 20-30; col. 16, lines 28-30);
output, after the beam selection procedure and for a UE beam refinement procedure, a reference signal [BRS or BRRS] via a first network node beam associated with a network node beam refinement procedure (see col. 1, line 64 – col. 2, line 5; col. 6, lines 35-41); and
output, after the UE beam refinement procedure, an indication of a switch to the first network node beam from a second network node beam, wherein the indication of the switch comprises a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (see col. 9, lines 39-43; col. 10; lines 34-39), and wherein the indication of the switch is configured to prompt the UE to perform a beam switching operation to switch to a first UE beam from a second UE beam based at least in part on the indication of the switch, wherein the first UE beam is selected during the UE beam refinement procedure [Communication then continues on beam B] (see col. 10, lines 38-39; col. 13, lines 7-8).
As to claim 11, Koskela discloses the network node of claim 10, wherein the first network node beam is associated with a third network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure and the second network node beam is associated with a fourth network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure. [Please see examiner notes about associations, beam has no measurable difference] (see fig. 1-3).
As to claim 12, Koskela discloses the network node of claim 10, wherein the first network node beam and the second network node beam are associated with a third network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure. [Please see examiner notes about associations, beam has no measurable difference] (see fig. 1-3).
As to claim 15, Koskela discloses the network node of claim 10, wherein the UE beam refinement procedure is a first UE beam refinement procedure, and wherein the reference signal is a first reference signal (see col. 6, lines 35-41), and wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to: output, for a second UE beam refinement procedure, a second reference signal via a third network node beam [procedure repeats] (see col. 16-19); wherein to perform the beam switching operation the UE switch, based at least in part on a timer, from a first UE beam to a second UE beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8; col. 13, lines 7-8; col. 9, lines 2-20).
Regarding claims 19-21 and 23, they are the corresponding method claims of user equipment claims 1-3 and 6. Therefore, 19-21 and 23 claims are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Regarding claims 25-27 and 29, they are the corresponding method claims of network node claims 10-13 and 15. Therefore, 25-27 and 29 claims are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14, 16, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Zhu 20210058131.
As to claims 5, 14, 22 and 28 Koskela discloses wherein a configuration indication of the UE beam refinement procedure indicates a third network node beam associated with the first network node beam, wherein the third network node beam is associated with the beam selection procedure [change the labels of the beams] (see col. 8, lines 4-8). Koskela fails to disclose TCI. In an analogous art, Zhu discloses wherein a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state (see par. 0180). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills on the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use TCI for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards.
As to claims 7, 16, 24 and 30 Koskela discloses wherein the UE beam refinement procedure is a first UE beam refinement procedure, and wherein the reference signal is a first reference signal (see col. 6, lines 35-41), and wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to: receive, for a second UE beam refinement procedure, a second reference signal via the first network node beam [procedure repeats] (see col. 16-19); and switch, based at least in part on the second UE beam refinement procedure, from the first UE beam to the second UE beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8; col. 9, lines 2-20). Koskela fails to disclose autonomously. In an analogous art, Zhu discloses switch, based at least in part on the UE beam refinement procedure, autonomously from a first UE beam to a second UE beam (see par. 0230). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills on the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be autonomous for a faster switch and improvement of the communication.
As to claims 32 and 34, Koskela discloses wherein the reference signal is a channel state information feedback transmitted (see abstract). Koskela fails to disclose with repetition within a reference signal resource set. In an analogous art, Zhu discloses wherein the reference signal is a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) transmitted with repetition within a reference signal resource set (see par. 0428). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills on the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards..
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of John Wilson 20200220585.
As to claim 8 and 17, Koskela discloses wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to:
receive, based at least in part on the UE beam refinement procedure (see col. 6, lines 35-41);
transmit, based at least in part on the reception, a feedback report (see col. 6, lines 51-58) and
wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam, are, individually or in any combination, configured to: receive the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8). Koskela fails to disclose a channel state information reference signal or a channel state feedback report. In an analogous art, John Wilson discloses receive, based at least in part on the UE beam refinement procedure, a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS); and transmit, based at least in part on the CSI-RS, a channel state feedback (CSF) report (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills on the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use TCI for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the limitation wherein the beam switching operation is performed at a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) action time of 3 milliseconds after the UE receives the indication of the switch have not been found nor have been fairly suggested in the prior art search.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights