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 .
Request for Continued Examination
The request filed on 6/4/2026, for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/4/2026, with respect to §103 have been fully considered and but are not persuasive. The prior art rejections of 4/7/2026 have been maintained.
Applicant’s argument: First, Li only explains that the terminal determines the beam application time based on whether the DCI is on the same carrier as the UL transmission and/or the DL transmission which is not related to the fact that the parameter for determining the beam application time being carrier in the configuration information of at least one BWP on the at least one CC. Secondly, Li does not involve how to carrier configuration parameters for determining the beam application time. Thus, Li fails to disclose, teach or suggest the above features.
Examiner’s response: The references to paragraphs 0055-0056 of Li are not really relevant as to whether Li properly discloses receiving configuration parameters for determining beam application time. Li already discloses this subject matter in previously cited paragraph 0006 and also in paragraphs 0029-0032 (see Fig. 2), which disclose a terminal device receiving a DCI including a unified TCI state which is used to determine the beam application time.
As for the lack of teaching of configuration information of at least one BWP on at least one CC, the rejection is based on a combination of references. Bai et al. discloses updating beam information across a plurality of component carriers via downlink DCI by signaling a beam update for a UE to apply across multiple CCs and/or bandwidth parts/BWP thereof (para. 0071), thereby suggesting that the beam application time determined by the DCI and TCI state for a CC in Li, can also be applied to bandwidth parts of the component carriers. Thus, the TCI states in the DCIs for different component carriers of Li can be considered as “configuration parameters… carried in configuration information [i.e. DCIs] of at least one BWP on at least on CC”.
Applicant’s argument: Bai discloses the use of DCI indication to reduce signaling overhead and/or latency. However, this content does not involve how to carrier configuration parameters for determining the beam application time. Therefore, Bai fails to disclose, teach or suggest the above features.
Examiner’s response: 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).
In this case, Bai et al. discloses applying/updating beam parameters not just to component carriers, but to the bandwidth parts of component carriers based on DCI signals.
Li already discloses the use of DCI signals, particularly TCI included in the DCI, to determine beam application times.
Therefore, Li and Bai et al. properly disclose all of the recited subject matter in the amended claims. The prior art rejections are maintained. See below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2024/0340878) in view of Bai et al. (US 2021/0185648).
Regarding claim 1, 17, and 20, Li discloses a terminal comprising:
a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the program or instructions, when executed by the processor (terminal device includes a processor, memory, storing programs executable by the processor, para. 0006), causes the terminal to perform:
receiving first configuration information transmitted by a network-side device, wherein the first configuration information comprises a plurality of configuration parameters (receiving downlink control information (DCI) from a network device, DCI including unified transmission configuration indication (TCI) state, para. 0006 and abstract, step S201, Fig. 2, and corresponding transmission step S301, Fig. 3 of DCI by network device, para. 0081-0082; the DCI indicates the TCI state on different component carriers, para. 0052, 0055), and each of the configuration parameters separately corresponds to at least one target resource object (component carriers, para. 0052, 0055), the target resource object being determined based on at least one resource object list (different component carriers corresponding to different serving cells and/or non-serving cells, para. 0079, component carriers corresponding to particular cells are interpreted as belonging to listing of component carriers, where component carriers are resource objects);
wherein the target resource object is a component carrier (component carrier, para. 0052, 0055, 0079); and
determining, based on the configuration parameters, a beam application time for application of a common beam indicated by the network-side device for each target resource object (determining beam application time corresponding to the unified TCI state, from the DCI, para. 0006, that are for different component carriers, para. 0052, 0055).
However, Li does not expressly disclose that the target resource object is a bandwidth part (BWP) on a component carrier (CC), wherein the configuration parameters are carrier in configuration of at least one BWP on at least one CC.
Bai et al. discloses a related technique for updating beam information across a plurality of component carriers via downlink DCI, by signaling a beam update for a UE to apply across multiple CCs and/or bandwidth parts/BWP thereof (para. 0071). Thus, Bai et al. suggests applying a beam update to each BWP of a CC, and the (DCI/TCI of component carriers would also be considered as configuration parameters carrier in configuration information of at least one BWP of the CC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was made to modify the beam update/application scheme of Li to specify applying the beam update information to BWP of component carriers (i.e. target resource is a BWP on a CC, and the configuration information is also applied to BWP on CC), since this is suggested by the system of Bai et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Li further discloses wherein the configuration parameters are further carried in any one of the following or a combination thereof:
configuration information of the resource object list;
configuration information of at least one CC (DCI used to indicate the TCI state on different carriers, para. 0052, 0055);
configuration information of a target cell in which an uplink control channel is located; and
configuration information of a target BWP of the target cell in which the uplink control channel is located.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 12-16, 22-28 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/David S Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights